I'd like Obama more if he didn't attract such a whiny bunch of supporters. I don't think they realize how much any sentient being over the age of say 35 is turned off by their ahistorical world view and constant pearl clutching.

That is kind of creepy, in a chick-flick sort of way. If I'd just seen this out of the blue, I'd have assumed it must be a parody.

And what's with the "kitchen" reference? Are the Clinton people going to accuse themselves of misogyny now?

No, it's not just you. It's a very abrupt change in the narrative tone. "You need to be ready for anything" makes the ad sound like it will be very serious (especailly after all the images). Then "Especially now" sounds like a whole different ad, like everything is hunky dorry. Its jarring.

Are you seriously trying to suggest that using the image of Osama bin Laden - however brief - in a campaign ad is okay? It is despicable and indeed worthy of outrage, particularly because it is coming from a "Democrat" who should know better.

Sally: Are you seriously trying to suggest that using the image of Osama bin Laden - however brief - in a campaign ad is okay? It is despicable and indeed worthy of outrage, particularly because it is coming from a "Democrat" who should know better.

------------------

Bin Laden killed more than 2,000 innocent Americans and is still on the loose. He may very well be planning more terror attacks. I'm as hard core a Dem as anyone else, but I recognize he is one of the many problems that the next President will have to deal with. How is that beyond the pale to mention?

My guess: Trying to save money, they spliced together the good parts of three different audio takes instead of doing it over until they got one take that was good all the way through.

Sally: Yes, that's exactly what I'm suggesting. Context is everything. What's wrong with using an Osama image as part of an ad saying that you're the one best equipped to take him out? What exactly is it that's supposed to make this so outrageous?

Sally: using the image of Osama bin Laden - however brief...is despicable and indeed worthy of outrage

Why is that? I'm not trying to pick a fight; I want to understand what you're thinking. We do have real enemies, after all, and bin Laden is one of them. This is in no way like the infamous Chambliss ads, as far as I can see.

I'd like Obama more if he didn't attract such a whiny bunch of supporters

none of his supporters are on the ballot.

Using Osama Bin Laden in an ad is a right wing talking point Bush has been using for years to get himself re-elected and to get Republicans elected. Democrats should NOT be using Republican talking points. I hope we can agree on that.

Also, I get the feeling that the ad is trying to remind people Obama's middle name is Hussein again with this talk of war in Iraq and Saddam in the ad.

It's a desperate, tacky and basically insulting ad.

It's a desperate, tacky and basically insulting ad.

Yep. Politics is a contact sport, kiddies. Always has been. Deal with it.

"I'd like Obama more if he didn't attract such a whiny bunch of supporters"

Lacking in irony much?

Kevin--

It is actually very important to stop talking about the "war on terror." It's a chimera. The way to deal with the terror attacks is to stop being terrorized. It's certainly not a good idea to terrorize people further, as James Fallows told us way back in 2006.

I suppose Obama supporters think that ignoring Osama bin Laden will make him go away? He represents one of the huge problems that the President MUST face and deal with. No amount of wilful blindness can change that.

He may very well be planning more terror attacks. I'm as hard core a Dem as anyone else, but I recognize he is one of the many problems that the next President will have to deal with. How is that beyond the pale to mention?

Because it isn't actually true. The 9/11 attacks are unique. They've never done anything remotely as successful, and there's no reason to think they can do so in the future. IAC, the response should not be fear, but resilience. YOu know, kinda like NYCers who stayed in place and resumed living their lives as soon as possible.

Yeesh you're dense sometimes Kevin.

Rovian ad from a Democrat aimed at another Democrat = craptacular.

What more is there to wonder about really?

Thersites: "Yep. Politics is a contact sport, kiddies. Always has been. Deal with it."

I'm going with what the Big Dwag said once upon a time:
"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. That's the best."

Using bin Laden in a campaign commercial is buying into the culture of fear that is THE defining characteristic of the fascist Republican machine.
Let me put it another way: what's a GOOD reason to put OBL in a campaign ad?
And enough of the "he killed 2000 people" bit. Swimming pools kill more people every year, and yet there's no "Global War on Water" because it would be immediately stupid on the face of it. As opposed to GWOT, which is only stupid to people who spend just a little time thinking about it.
Shorter Hillary: if you're scared, vote for me. Too bad repubs already have that market cornered.

He represents one of the huge problems that the President MUST face and deal with

What makes you say that, evie? We've had more deaths from collapsing infrastructure than from bin Laden, post 9/11. I urge you to read the Fallows piece I posted up above. It's an overdue dose of sanity.

You're not wrong, mimi. My point is that it's a waste of time and energy whining about the other side's tactics, because your candidate is always going to get mud slung at him/her. At this point in the campaign, each candidate's supporters seem to be expending most of their energy complaining about the other side. I voted for Obama in the primary, but I needed a better reason than "Hillary is a b*tch." Nobody has shown me one, lately.

Jay -- your Fallows link is to the Clinton ad...

*

I'm not the only person to observe that this supposedly nasty and personal campaign has been pretty light on the kind of hard, direct criticism seen in earlier Presidential election cycles. For a while I thought this was because Sens. Clinton and Obama, while not liking each other very much, didn't disagree on very much.

I'm coming around to the contrary view that the supporters of each candidate are just extraordinarily sensitive to the possibility that people might be mean to them. The candidates and their campaign organizations respond to this sensitivity less by appealing for support than by appealing for sympathy ("woe is me, my opponent is just being sooo negative"). I'm probably just showing my age by saying that running as a victim is a questionable tactic for someone who aspires to be the leader of the Free World. And I may be wrong to say it, because it seems to have worked so far for both Clinton and Obama. For that matter, it has worked pretty well for President Bush over the years, too; think of how completely his strongest supporters in the Republican Party have bought into the idea that he is all but persecuted by liberals and the media.

I wonder if what this country really needs are some toughen-up pills.

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200609/fallows_victory

They've invaded my very computer!!! I was wrong. Their power is limitless!!!

Um, thanks.

Democrats, liberals, and the netroots used to complain that 6 years after 9/11, we hadn't captured Osama Bin Laden. We used to say that was one difference between the Ds and the Rs. We used to say we needed to send more troops to Afghanistan, deal with Pakistan, and Iraq was a mistake.

But now I can state that HRC IS a vile vicious bitch for producing this ad.

Yummy yummy kool-aid.

David Axelrod: When Osama's picture is shown, you can hear a breathy "Obama Hussein" in the background.

Meds time, David! We've listened to the ad 3 times now, here at the nursing station. No such thing.

I wonder if what this country really needs are some toughen-up pills.
Posted by: Zathras on April 21, 2008 at 1:50 PM

yes! yes! yes!

"Are Democratic political ads no longer even allowed to mention the fact that the next president is going to have to deal with the war on terror?"

Yes, because the so-called "war on terror" is a Republican-created, fear-inspiring frame that is stupid, nonsensical, and counter-productive. To buy into it, as Clinton has done, helps Republicans like McCain and pretty clearly demonstrates that she just doesn't get it.

We shouldn't be using fear as a tool against the American people. We also shouldn't abandon the language and concerns of the American people. To ignore bin Laden place in our culture is foolish and to use his identity for our own ends is dangerous. About the only thing we can hope for is that Democrats will treat the issue of terrorism with sincerity and sensitivity. But considering most politicians probably see very little of the big picture, I wouldn't be too optimistic.

I suppose Obama supporters think that ignoring Osama bin Laden will make him go away? He represents one of the huge problems that the President MUST face and deal with.

Osama bin Laden does represent huge problesm the next president must deal with. The problems of US military bases on foreign soil, the problems of US military aid to Israel, the problems of US citizens making Zionist settlements in Palestine, the problems of killing so many innocent Iraqis and Afghanis with US air power, the problems of stealing Iraq's and Iran's oil, the problems of financing the death and the problems of finding enough young Americans to do the killing.

Bin Laden represents many problems the next president will attempt to solve, just not the ones hysterical Americans tend to think of.

However, there is something odd about this ad. "You need to be ready for anything," the narrator intones portentiously...

My initial reaction was a little different, as this is an odd point for her to be making when you consider the fact that she seems to have been completely unprepared for most of what followed February 5. Next to the laundry list of mind numbingly unpredictable events that the narrator rattles off, presidential campaigns are manifestly predictable (if grueling). Yet she's managed to pretty much flush hers down the toilet. I'm not sure it's reasonable to think she'd handle the messy stuff any better.

Democrats, liberals, and the netroots used to complain that 6 years after 9/11, we hadn't captured Osama Bin Laden. We used to say that was one difference between the Ds and the Rs. We used to say we needed to send more troops to Afghanistan, deal with Pakistan, and Iraq was a mistake.

Actually, many of us said "IF this about terrorism, wtf are you doing in Iraq?" That is not the same thing. Many of us were saying that the president was lying the US into a war, on a transparently false pretext.

Thersites: I hear you. Hopefully, once the primaries are over and the candidate is chosem (whomever she or he may be), we'll all get on the same boat and expand that energy defeating McCain in the general.

Come on. Is there really any danger that anyone has forget that Osama bin Laden and the threat that he represents will have to dealt with by the next President? Of course not.

Would you rationalize the use of the image of Hilter in a campaign ad by arguing that the point of the ad is that candidate x is best equipped to end genocide? Based on the same rationalization, are the use of images from 9/11, the Klan, a Mushroom cloud, etc, etc all okay to use in campaign ads too?

The use of these images is not to extoll the relative qualifications of a candidate, it is provoke fear and anger in voters, which should repudiated with outrage.

Hillary's final hope is that the voters finally and decisively begin to view Barack as unelectable and too inexperienced (then the shift in polls will convince the delegates to vote for her instead).

Those two rationales are probably the best examples of being both really good reasons and easy-to-understand arguments her campaign has. So she's going to hit on the "more experienced" thing to the end. Why is the more experienced thing important? Because when you're the President, decisions count, and sometimes they really count. Maybe we want somebody who knows all the players (in the highest levels of our government) a little better, is a little more cynical about them, and is more likely to deliberate their advice coolly when a crisis hits, rather than taking some flattery or politeness to mean too much.

There's no better or stronger way to say it than what she did with the ad, and you can't really expect her to do otherwise- to do it in a toned-down, wimpy way, that hits with less than what she's got- right now. That would be stupid.

OMG! Mods this is completely uncalled for!

Sally has just tried to conflate Hillary Clinton with Adolf Hitler through her subtle subliminal morphing of Hillary and Hitler!!!! She's trying to scare us from voting for Hillary! Unacceptable!

Would you rationalize the use of the image of Hilter

ZOMG!!!!

Umm, Kevin, I think you left out the link to the part where "the pro-Obama forces seriously trying to get their troops outraged". I've seen a little anger over the politics of fear aspect, and sure, there are people who will go nuts every time they see Osama, but you might want to provide some support for your claim that someone on Obama's side is trying to gin up a bunch of outrage.

Otherwise, this post begins with a really stupid slant to it.

Well, I watched the ad and I didn't find the shot of Osama all that much of a partisan snipe. Presumably he continues to exist and, as such, represents one American point of interest. What I also didn't find was much reason to support Hillary Clinton based on those historical snippets. I don't see her making the "day that will live in infamy speech," or managing a ground war in Europe.

What was really irritating about the ad was the musical background. Most of these ads (at least on the Republican side) use the same manipulative sounds, reminiscent of the marshall riding off into the setting sun and troops marching down main street after a great victory. The music is a major part of the effect, and critics rarely point out how we are being led around by the nose.

Overall grade: b-/c+

....The 9/11 attacks are unique........ jayackroyd on April 21, 2008 at 1:25 PM

I'm going with what the Big Dwag said.... mimi at 1:26 PM

....Shorter Hillary: if you're scared, vote for me....Govt Skeptic at 1:27 PM she just doesn't get it. PaulB at 2:00 PM

.....We've had more deaths from collapsing infrastructure than from bin Laden, post 9/11.... jayackroyd at 1:35 PM |

....When Al Gore used Willie Horton against Dukakis.... meathead republican at 1:44 PM

"Context is everything. What's wrong with using an Osama image as part of an ad saying that you're the one best equipped to take him out? What exactly is it that's supposed to make this so outrageous?"

Kevin, I really like your blog, but this type of seemingly purposeful obtuseness is maddening.

Context *is* everything; Hillary has been running around trying to pretend she has doubts about whether or not Barack is a Christian, associting him with Hamas, Farakhan, Ayers, his "America hating" pastor, the quasi race baiting thing, etc.: she's doing everything she can to destroy him (without destroying herself as well). She isn't making positive arguments because she can't win that way; she's doing all she can to make him unacceptable to white America so that she can get the superdelagates to overturn the will of the voters. That is the context.

Also, we are talking about Hillary, someone who thought it was more important to start a war based upon false pretenses than to focus on catching Bin Laden and bringing him to justice. She's lying about it now, pretending it was a vote for diplomacy, not war, but nobody, least of all her, is that stupid. She voted for war, and she explititly claimed 9/11 as justification for her vote. ("They" attacked "her" city.)

So we have someone with a history of exploiting a national tragedy as the inaguration of her presidential campaign, actively trying to question her opponent while associating him with terrorists (including ones from the group so awful her husband deigned it justice to pardon a couple of former members eight years ago), desperately, maddingly, flailing in mawkish hysteria in search of a smear good enough to start a superdelagate coup. She is running a negative ad against Barack Hussein Obama. She's running it a day before the vote, to avoid the blowback. It's distasteful to say the least. That is the context.

No, it's not Rove or Atwater level, but Hillary is a democrat--or is supposed to be one--so she should behave like one. Her lack of honesty, decency, and concern for the health of the party is revolting. It's bad enough to run something like this before Iowa, but now? She doesn't have a chance, and yet...she isn't closing with healthcare, the housing crisis--or not just--she reminds us about bin Laden and says that Obama can't handle him.

Any ideas why we are supposed to come to that conclusion, Kevin?

^ that should be "actively trying to question the patriotism of her opponent" not "actively trying to question her opponent", which is just fine by me

"Nope, message: it's not all wine and roses out there."

Nope, message: I have nothing to offer but fear itself.

It's even more absurd that the Obama droids think the Harry Truman quote is sexist.

They may not be very bright but Democratic ditto-heads are still preferable to the Republican version. Useful idiots.

HH: It's even more absurd that the Obama droids think the Harry Truman quote is sexist.

If that's a reference to And what's with the "kitchen" reference? you really, really need to develop a sense of humor.

Godwin's law states that the first person to make a point by comparing someone to Adolf Hitler in a debate loses that debate. Dilbert's law states that the first political candidate to provide an image of Osama in a commercial loses the nomination. Remember to turn the lights out, Hillary, when you pack up and leave.

...and the rest of the thread proves Teresa's point!

Good god, what a bunch of whiners. "How daaaaaaaaare anyone mention Osama bin Laden! Hillary's a meanie!"

"The way to deal with the terror attacks is to stop being terrorized."

Is there room for another head in that sand there, cowboy?

There was a previous attack on the WTC in 1993, in case you didn't know it.

Yeah, it was a typical dumbass, almost entirely ineffectual effort, where they all go rolled up in part because they went back to the rental agency to get a refund on the van they used.

Fitzgerald et al locked 'em all up. This is the nature of the threat. Idiots with rental vans and fertilizer explosives.

There is nothing to fear here.

Watching the Hillary Clinton campaign, and her online defenders, simply reminds me of watching Republicans. Dismissing critics with "Clinton Derangement Syndrome". Justifying bullying by claiming it's a character test. Claiming that responding to slams is negative hypocrisy, and that not doing so betrays weakness.

I detest the Republican party in no small part because of its election tactics. And Clinton is using those same tactics, inspiring many of the same emotions in me. If her online defenders are trying to persuade with their alternating 'the media is unfair to Clinton' and 'suck it up, Obama deserves hard questions' arguments, they are not succeeding.

Pearls before swhine, Teresa.

The Bin Laden clip doesn't seem like much too me. The other problem with the narration is that he says so little in the first 14 seconds and then has to breathlessly cram it all into the second half.

My beef is that this ad goes right back to the "experience" theme. Wow, that's really been working so well for Clinton this year. Keep it up, Mark Penn!

Watching the Hillary Clinton campaign, and her online defenders, simply reminds me of watching Republicans.

Funny, I get the same feeling from Obamazooids. Like the wingnut classic, 'projecting ones faults onto the competition'. Like claiming Clinton is using Retardican tactics when that is what Obamazooids do.

You call her racist, she is not.

You claim she will not change anything, when her policies are the same as his.

You've used just about every talking point from the 90's the Retardicans used to degrade her and Bill.

And so on, and so on...

I can't believe you all don't see how racist this ad is. It is suggesting that Hillary should be the nominee, which implies that Obama shouldn't be. Therefore, it is suggesting Hillary is better than Obama, and therefore it is suggesting that a white person is better than a black person, and therefore it is suggesting that all white people are better than all black people at all times.

Also, by showing Osama's image for a split second, they were clearly suggesting that Obama IS Osama and is plotting terrorist attacks as we speak.

Also, on a more personal level, the add made me cry.

JayAckrod: "Fitzgerald et al locked 'em all up. This is the nature of the threat. Idiots with rental vans and fertilizer explosives."

-------------------

Tell that to the folks in the Twin Towers, or the trains in Madrid, or any of the other people who have died at the hands of terrorists.

Your attitude is what causes the GOP to be able to make Democrats look like idiots.

One can certainly claim that there are better ways to fight Al Quada or even that it is not worth sacrificing our civil liberties for, but to argue that they do not pose a threat in this day and age is to appear to be a fool.

Unfortunately there is a "War on Terror" in the minds of the public. The question is, will we combat terrorism sensibly or just thrash around causing untold damage to innocent bystanders (and our country's reputation)? Do we act as if we are fighting WWII or trying to bring the Mafia to justice?
What Bin Laden represents - criminal activity hiding behind religious phrases, does need to be combatted; the how is what is important. Should we continue down the Bush/Cheyney/Rumsfeld path we are doomed to failure and I really can't see either Democratic candidate continuing on such a self-defeating course.

The children the US Evangelical Air Force is killing pose no threat.

Wow Elmo. I'm really persuaded by you. Calling me an "Obamazooid." Nice rhetoric. Last time I checked, Republicans don't typically call their opponents racists - they complain that their opponents are unfairly labelling GOP attacks as racist. I actually think those charges against Clinton aren't fair - but I think that she absolutely and without a doubt has been using Republican tactics against Obama. And neither Obama supporters nor his campaign have used the 90s litany of Clinton-baiting charges, so that casual little insult of yours has no basis in reality. I rather doubt that 90s republicans accused Clinton of campaigning like a republican. But, hey, logic isn't apparently your strength.

You can't mention specifics elmo because you don't have squat. Your entire sneering argument boils down to "I know you are, but what am I"? You can't defend her awful campaign (in the sense of ineffective and destructive.) All you can do is complain that Obama is worse. I am *so* glad that Clinton destroyed herself in this primary, which saved us from an awful general election campaign on her part. The only remaining question is whether she retained any dignity in her loss. The answer appears to be no.

"...and the rest of the thread proves Teresa's point!"

Not really; all it "proves" is that you are incapable of reading, comprehending, and coherently responding to, the issues raised in this thread.

"but to argue that they do not pose a threat in this day and age is to appear to be a fool."

Define "threat", please, and tell us why we should live in fear of it, since that was Jay's point. By elevating Osama bin Laden and his organization to the level of the #1 "threat" to the U.S. and the #1 focus of the entire U.S. defense, diplomatic, and security organizations, Bush played directly into bin Laden's hands and gave him exactly what he was looking for. Based on what we've seen thus far, Clinton is going to make precisely the same mistake.

Osama bin Laden is not a "threat" to me, by any meaningful definition of that word, nor is Osama bin Laden a "threat" to the U.S. He's a pissant who got lucky because we have a moron at the helm.

"Your attitude is what causes the GOP to be able to make Democrats look like idiots."

No, the Democratic Party's abject capitulation and failure to push back on the idiocies and inaccuracies being pushed by the Bush administration made the Democrats look like idiots, and weak ones at that.

Brojo,

Obama considers himself to be a strong supporter of Israel. I think he's a liar, what do you think?

Is there a book called "America for Dummies" that I can look into so I can understand what makes the electorate tick and how people decide on a nominee for president.

Looks and football ability seem to matter in high school,looks and how much money your family has are important in college, then there's how much drinking you can do or cup size or being the center of attention. In grown-up life it seems money is a big deal and so is cup size.

Do people usually vote rich white male no matter what? Does tall matter? How about the ability to eat corn dogs at county fairs? Nice smile, good hair. What is it that people go for in a presidential candidate?

Finally, I found her out. Hillary Clinton is a Republican. Ever since her days as a
"Goldwater Girl" and president of Wellesley College Republican club, Hillary is a known GPO'er. Then she did a blood bondage with Murdoch and other assorted right wing crazies.

I say good riddance to her. Let her do shots with Lieberman, be in bed with AIPAC , slobber over big money goons, dance with Rahm Emmanuel and Charles
Schumer and the rest of the DLC apparachiks, I am through with her! I'm for a democratic party for the everyday person, the regular people who do the 9-5 thing or whatever. Call it the poor people's party of the party of just plain folks--let Hillary join the Party of the Rich--which we all know as the republican party.

PaulB: Define "threat", please, and tell us why we should live in fear of it, since that was Jay's point. By elevating Osama bin Laden and his organization to the level of the #1 "threat" to the U.S. and the #1 focus of the entire U.S. defense, diplomatic, and security organizations, Bush played directly into bin Laden's hands and gave him exactly what he was looking for. Based on what we've seen thus far, Clinton is going to make precisely the same mistake.

-----------------------------

I never said that Osama was the #1 threat against the US and neither did Hillary's ad. He is A threat however and it simply ignorant to say otherwise. There are many threats in the world right now: loose nukes, instability in Pakistan, Iran getting nuclear weapons, Al Quada, a resurgent Taliban, global warming, etc... That doesn't mean we should follow an idiotic foreign policy like GWB, but we shouldn't pretend that certain threats don't exist.

What evidence do you have for accusing Hillary of "playing into" making Bin Laden the #1 threat. The ad listed him amongst a bunch of other things.
She has promised to remove troops from Iraq and I believe her as much as I do Obama on that score.

Jeepers, guys. Believe it or not, we're all on the same side. I think.

I would respectfully suggest renaming this thread "Ad Nauseam."

"I never said that Osama was the #1 threat against the US and neither did Hillary's ad."

I never said you did. I said that Bush did.

"He is A threat however and it simply ignorant to say otherwise."

I repeat: define "threat", please, and tell us why we should live in fear of it, since that was Jay's point. To whom is he a threat? And why? What are the realistic chances of a "threat" from bin Laden?

"There are many threats in the world right now:"

No! Really?

"but we shouldn't pretend that certain threats don't exist."

I repeat: Osama bin Laden is not a "threat" to me, by any meaningful definition of that word, nor is Osama bin Laden a "threat" to the U.S. He's a pissant who got lucky because we have a moron at the helm.

"What evidence do you have for accusing Hillary of 'playing into' making Bin Laden the #1 threat. The ad listed him amongst a bunch of other things."

I did not say that Clinton was going to make bin Laden the #1 threat. I said that she appeared to be going down the same road that Bush did, and that you clearly have, of elevating bin Laden as a "threat," thus playing directly into this hands.

We don't need a stronger foreign policy; we need a smarter one. We don't need to live in fear; we need realistic assessments of "threats"; and we have needed both of these for years now. So far, Clinton is not impressing me, and ads like this just confirm my suspicions.

The complaints from the Obama camp perfectly illustrate one of the reasons the Democratic Party has such a hard time making headway against the "bad on defense" stereotype -- because some of them simply just plain ninnies. Yes, that's personalizing and negative, but honestly, what other response is there to someone so inane that they think we cannot talk about Osama bin Laden in this campaign because Obama is only 1 initial away even though Osama was responsible for 9/11.

On the job accidents cause by employer negligence kill more people than 9/11 but those death on 9/11 are different. They shock the consciencde yb their deliberation. People die for many reasons that are part of daily life - from driving accidents, etc. When that happens, people are sadded, but it does not shock the conscience.

If you seriously believe that the deaths from collapsing bridges are equivalent to those from terrorist attacks, I guess there's no talking to you.

PaulB -- Osama proved himself threat enough to kill 2,000 people on 9/11. As long as he is alive, I would say he poses some threat. Neither you or I are in a position to evaluate the intelligence to guage how much operational influence he yields at this point. But Al Quada has proven adept at playing the "long game." We had the first attack on the Trade Center in the 90's, the attack on the US Cole, Kobar Towers, then 9/11. I want to see his worthless hide nailed to a damn wall.

It's all well and good to say we are "over blowing" the threat by making everyone get searched getting on an airplane, but the way in which terrorism works is to play on our deepest fear. I still -- for one -- look up when I hear a plane flying too low near my home. That may not be "logical," but I doubt I am the only American who feels that way. And I think more of them are in my camp than your more stoic camp.

Again, Kevin. WTF? Is Hillary paying you? This whole scare the electorate thing--doesn't that in the least bother you? And what about Hillary Clinton makes anyone believe she is the right person for any crisis? She is unhinged. The whole thing is Rove. And I am damned tired of Rove. I want his name expunged from history.

we cannot talk about Osama bin Laden in this campaign

Clinton's ad only had a brief image of bin Laden. There was no discussion about how to counter terrorism from a small stateless group with no army, navy or air force who are opposed to US and Israeli military aggression.

That may not be "logical,"

It is logical for demagogues to pander to your irrational fears. A logical conclusion to such pandering is the deaths of innocent civilians.

It is logical for Iraqis and Afghanis to duck and cover when they hear a plane flying nearby, it may very well mean American missiles are on the way to kill their children.

I liked the ad. Big surprise, no?

This Obama supporter looked at the ad. I'm not a mind-reader, so I don't pretend to know what was in the minds of the people creating the ad, or in Hillary's mind for that matter.

They MAY have been trying to remind people that Obama and Osama are just one letter apart. OTOH, they MAY have just been including Osama along with a laundry list other threats faced by this country in the past.

I also agree with PaulB and Jason that at this time, oSama does not present that huge a threat. And that we need to deal with such a threat as he is, and in general things in the Middle East, far more intelligently than the Bush maladministration has done.

My problem with this ad is that it proves absolutely nothing. Name a few threats and challenges faced by the country in the past, name (correctly) challenges we are currently facing. Then assert, with no evidence whatsoever, that Hillary is the one competent to deal with these challenges. No logical connection between asserting her competence, and the previous threats.

It's like a murder trial in which all sorts of terrible things done to the victim are shown in gory detail, but no shred of evidence is presented showing the defendant to be the guilty party. There are people who would lock up the defendant based simply on the heinousness of the crime, even if the prosecution failed to adequately prove the defendant's guilt. It's that type of logical fallacy that the ad is attempting to exploit, and on that basis, I find the ad quite annoying.

But, hey, logic isn't apparently your strength.

Of couse not. I'm stupid. Thanks for reminding me, guiness.

Last time I checked, Republicans don't typically call their opponents racists - they complain that their opponents are unfairly labelling GOP attacks as racist.

Damn, you got me there. Clinton claiming Obamazooids(grow up elmo!) are unfairly labeling her as racist is just like the Retardicans do.

And neither Obama supporters nor his campaign have used the 90s litany of Clinton-baiting charges, so that casual little insult of yours has no basis in reality.

Wanna think that through further? LOL! Even Kevin thought so once...

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_03/013281.php

All you can do is complain that Obama is worse.

I'm *so* glad Marc destroyed himself on this thread, to save us from more mundane pansy ass dribble...

We used to say we needed to send more troops to Afghanistan, deal with Pakistan, and Iraq was a mistake.

I assume you know that Hillary isn't part of that "we."

Who's drinking the 'yummy kool-aid' agian?

"PaulB -- Osama proved himself threat enough to kill 2,000 people on 9/11."

Why yes, he did. Wow ... I never would have known that had you not told me. What part of "He's a pissant who got lucky because we have a moron at the helm" are you having trouble understanding?

"As long as he is alive, I would say he poses some threat."

What is the nature of that "threat"? Who is affected by it? How does it rank against the other "threats" this country faces? Its citizens face?

"Neither you or I are in a position to evaluate the intelligence to guage how much operational influence he yields at this point."

No, but I am in a position to evaluate the "threat" against myself, i.e., none. So far, you've given me no reason to change that evaluation.

"It's all well and good to say we are 'over blowing' the threat"

Yes, it is all well and good because we are, in fact, vastly overblowing the threat. Are you going to pretend otherwise?

"but the way in which terrorism works is to play on our deepest fear."

Ah, but that only works when you have someone ready and willing to "overblow" the threat for political gain, as George W. Bush did, and as Clinton appears to be doing. When you have good leaders in charge ("We have nothing to fear but fear itself"), the tactic does not work.

"I still -- for one -- look up when I hear a plane flying too low near my home. That may not be 'logical,'"

Correct. It's not logical. More, it's not rational.

"but I doubt I am the only American who feels that way."

Thanks to a carefully planned propaganda campaign, you are correct. Did you have a point?

"And I think more of them are in my camp than your more stoic camp."

Of what relevance is that? All you're doing is proving my point!