Desperate times call for desperate measures, I suppose. With the March 4 primaries in Texas and Ohio around the corner, the million-dollar-sucking consultants at Camp Clinton have put together an ad reminiscent in tone of Lyndon Johnson “Daisy” advertisement. Its theme — warn voters that Senator Barack Obama’s experience, in comparison to Senator Clinton’s, means putting the entire country at risk. (ABC):
The problem for Clinton here is that the selling point — that she’s “tested and ready” — places in stark relief the incompetence of her campaign operation. Given the performance of the people she’s chosen to run her campaign, it suggests that experience and being tested, either as a senator, First Lady (or any of her other prior political experience), doesn’t necessarily make you a good leader, message conveyor or possess good judgment when it comes to crisis management.
“It’s 3:00am and your children are asleep,” the voice over says. “There’s a phone in the White House, and it’s ringing. Something is happening in the world. Your vote will decide who answers that call.”“Whether someone knows the world’s leaders, knows the military, someone tested and ready to lead. It’s 3am and your children are safe and asleep. Who do you want answering the phone?”
I’m not saying that she doesn’t have those skill sets, mind you, but nothing the public has seen so far about her decision making during this election cycle, and who she’s chosen as her “experts” can give the average voter confidence about a Hillary presidency. The whole Jeckyll/Hyde persona shifts, likely a surfacing of inner tensions among the “experts,” further erodes the image of a candidate in control.
I’m not sure this ad will do much to help on that front, but they are throwing anything against the wall at this point, hoping something will stick and resonate.
UPDATE: Obama’s response ad. Smart, pretty stinging one at that.
“It’s 3 a.m. and your children are safe and asleep. But there’s a phone ringing in the White House. Something’s happening in the world. When that call gets answered, shouldn’t the president be the one – the only one – who had judgment and courage to oppose the Iraq war from the start… Who understood the REAL threat to America was al-Qaeda, in Afghanistan, not Iraq. Who led the effort to secure loose nuclear weapons around the globe… In a dangerous world, it’s judgment that matters. I’m Barack Obama and I approved this message..”
43 Responses to “Latest Clinton ad sells experience with fear-baiting”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Camp Clinton seems to have decided that sh*t sticks best.
Still, it’s a nice warmup for Obama of the John NoBrain attack line, “I’m the best at leading us into another hundred years of war!”
.
“Now one of Clinton’s laws of politics is this: If one candidate’s trying to scare you and the other one’s trying to get you to think, if one candidate’s appealing to your fears and the other one’s appealing to your hopes, you better vote for the person who wants you to think and hope.”
-Bill Clinton, 2004
irony much?
invisible_hand, that was a slam dunk.
the quote is sourced here: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0410/25/pzn.01.html
Kevin Drum has a thread up on interesting poll results of Clinton/McCain and Obama/McCain matchups (basically, both Democrats beat him though Hillary draws more Democrats and Obama draws more independents & Republicans) and it got nasty in comments. You have partisans on both sides declaring that they’ll vote for McCain if their favored candidate doesn’t get the nomination.
Makes me want to go Moe on all of their asses and knock some heads together because people on both sides are really pissing me off right now.
They should have added James Earl Jones solemnly stating “If you don’t elect Hillary Clinton, all of America’s children will die!…”
You know that’s what they want us to believe anyway…
This weekend, they’ll run an ad showing one of the 9/11 planes from inside the cockpit, just before it hits, with an Obama stand-in, wearing a turban, at the controls laughing maniacally…
The observer has a story camparing this to an old Walter Mondale advert. Surely a bad sign if ever there was one.
http://www.observer.com/2008/hillary-mondale-again6359
Also, apparently the Obama campaign has used this old Iowa ad as a fast rebuttal:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ag8gOXZulXg
Holy smokes, invisible_hand. Obama needs to plagiarize that line.
You and me both. I like to think that people will settle down and realize what they’re saying once this is over–any people who consider themselves even remotely liberal or progressive should acknowledge that while they may have a preference between Clinton and Obama, the difference between them is miniscule compared to the ocean between either and McCain. If they want to go farther left and vote for McKinney, that’s one thing–I don’t agree with it, but I can understand it, and I hope they don’t do it if they live in a competitive state, but there is no reasonable comparison between either Clinton or Obama and McCain.
~sigh~ This kind of shit is why I’ll be much happier if I’m filling in the little dot next to “Barack Obama” next fall rather than “Hillary Clinton”. If she’s not willing to abandon “politics as usual” in the primary, against someone who has positions virtually identical to hers, wtf is she going to do when she’s up against real political enemies?
I’ve had enough scaremongering. I’m an easy sell for a salesman offering “hope”.
I hear you here, and I absolutely agree that Clinton has done a poor job of running her campaign, especially once she lost her front-runner status, and that the ad is fear-mongering. But in a bigger picture sense, I really struggle with that notion that the best campaigner really is the best person for the job, or that good campaigning skills necessarily translate into good governance. I’m not sure that’s always the case.
“Whether someone knows the world’s leaders, knows the military, someone tested and ready to lead. It’s 3am and your children are safe and asleep. Who do you want answering the phone?”
John McCain, if these are the criteria. Has she lost her mind? Grace under pressure, when your husband’s been caught putting his cigar where it doesn’t belong, doesn’t compare to surviving years as a POW. Better with the military, been tested harder, more experienced, more ready to lead in a terror-filled world; she might as well concede to McCain right now.
any people who consider themselves even remotely liberal or progressive should acknowledge that while they may have a preference between Clinton and Obama, the difference between them is miniscule compared to the ocean between either and McCain
I kind of have to say, that “ocean” seems smaller and smaller every time Clinton does something like this.
ok. I am going to get nasty:
Hillary can’t even keep an eye on who Bill Clinton is getting a BJ, and she wants to be the night watch?
Here is a next ad idea for Hillary:
Everytime you vote Obama, God will kill a kitten and make baby Jesus cry.
Hillary Clinton will call your daughter at 3AM if you don’t vote for her!
Shitty commercial is shitty. How many millions did they pay for that crap?
A diarist over on the Great Orange Satan has discovered that the ad is a carbon copy of a McCain fan video from a couple months ago.
Mark Penn must be the most overpaid person in the U.S.
He already has a direct response ad up (frankly, I’m starting to wonder if he has a mole in their campaign this is just uncanny quickness):
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0208/Obama_Ringing.html#comments
Had anyone else heard about this?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23408698/
Apparently, HRC may question whether or not the primary/caucus rules in Texas are valid!! Is there NOTHING the Clinton machine won’t try to rig the vote in their favor???
SocraticSilence: So (asking primarily because I can’t load the youtubes where I am right now, and thus cannot watch the video myself) does Obama’s response ad make its point in a way that holds to Obama’s promise this morning of “I will never see the threat of terrorism as a way to scare up votes”?
I’m still very confused by the whole initial premise.
You, the watcher of the ad, have sweet little sleeping babies. Awww. All is calm, all is bright.
But somewhere else there’s a crisis, and the President’s peace is broken suddenly by a phone call. But then the phone is also, kind of, because of editing, ringing at your house, or something.
You want to keep your own house placid, and stop the damn phone from ringing before it wakes up the kids. You’re on alert, and the White House is on alert.
So vote for the candidate who nips in the bud any crisis before it might engulf your own precious family (gag). Kind of by-the-numbers, but OK.
So why say again, before the end, “It’s 3am and your children are safe and asleep”? If anything, it would add to the melodrama if your kids _weren’t_ safe and asleep. Boom! Booga-booga!
It’s like the writers really wanted to say that your children were _in jeopardy_ without this One Strong Leader, but they couldn’t quite bring themselves to write it that way.
louise, the key word is “may.” Who knows how close to reality it is, or ever was.
So (asking primarily because I can’t load the youtubes where I am right now, and thus cannot watch the video myself) does Obama’s response ad make its point in a way that holds to Obama’s promise this morning of “I will never see the threat of terrorism as a way to scare up votes”?
Unfortunately not.
The add emphasizes Obama’s opposition to the Iraq War and then sells the old Kerry 2004 meme that it’s “al Qaeda in Afghanistan” that we should really be wetting our pants about.
FlipYrWig: Perhaps the idea is that every phone in the world is simultaneously ringing, to announce the ascension of the Lawnmower Man.
The makers of this ad are IDIOTS. I thought it was an ad for McCain until I saw her face (yes, I knew it was really Clinton’s because I had seen the post info, but I tried to watch it as if I didn’t know that). McCain couldn’t have produced a scarier spot. Nice going Clinton campaign.
Didn’t Lyndon Johnson’s Daisy ad blow up in his face? What were they thinking?
*sigh*
I want her to win, personally, but this sort of thing just doesn’t work.
Allahpundit put it best:
Is it my imagination, or is Mrs Clinton laying the groundwork for a campaign which says that if she can’t be elected, then no Democrat can?
Agreed, FlipYrWig; “may” is indeed the operative word and we’ll have to wait and see what happens. But it still sounds like a veiled threat by HRC’s people.
Louise asked:
This was a rhetorical question, right?
WTF?! Aren’t the Democratic voters much less likely to respond favorably to a scare ad? If people want a Big Protector to take care of them, they are going to be in the party of Commander Codpiece. In the primaries, you have to market to *your* party, not the other one.
Didn’t Lyndon Johnson’s Daisy ad blow up in his face? What were they thinking?
Is this… sarcasm? Wasn’t the “Daisy” ad revered for decades as one of the most effective pieces of political advertising of all time, despite having only aired once before being pulled?
I completely agree that this sounded exactly like a McCain ad. Unbelievably like a McCain ad. Even if HRC could win the nomination, this would only bite her in the ass.
Obama’s “Ringing” response ad does somewhat play into fears of terrorism, but the main point is “Al Qaeda was/is in AFGHANISTAN, not Iraq, dumbasses”; then it mentions that Obama was against the war, plus he’s tried to prevent nuclear nonproliferation through international collaboration. It has actual *substance*, unlike the HRC fear-mongering.
I think the fear angle is just going to play into McCain’s hands.
I’m with everyone who says Clinton just produced a really great ad for McCain. In addition to all of the pandering, the implication that being married to the commander in chief equals actual experience in command still bugs me. Clinton does have a lot of additional knowledge as a result of having lived in the White House and participated in decision-making, but.
George W Bush spend all his live in the whitehouse.
In fact all his people, the way he deals with evangelical base, his daddy’s clean up men, spin machine are all connected to his tenure as son of president.
(Not to mention his business dealing.)
————–
Hillary Clinton? The so called experience also means PR company, political hacks, media tactic, the thugs, the political clowns, the ‘clinton’ ways of doing things, the walmart connection, the corporate media, etc.
Those are the “experience” comprise of really. (afterall, people at that level has “group of advisors”)
Clinton foreign policy? Neo-Liberalism? You really want that to continue? You really want Clinton to march to Beijing and demand them to drop their peg just like they did to Japan?
Not likely, because it seems China is prepared with huge reserve. And they are strengthening their banking. (ie. they can and able to execute dollar run.)
On Israel. Hillary is very much hawk. So expect further confrontation and unstable energy price.
Why no comments on Obama’s ad?
When I saw Clinton’s ad, I was so disappointed. I couldn’t believe her campaign stooped to that kind of bullsh*t.
Then I saw Obama’s ad, and I was so disappointed. I couldn’t believe his campaign stooped to that kind of bullsh*t.
There should be some recognition that everybody’s in the same boat here. It will be very annoying if Obama’s ad doesn’t receive the same criticism as Clinton’s. I doubt it will. Instead, it will be characterized as “smart.”
sigh.
Oh, and Obama’s Harry and Louise ads saying that Clinton would force poor people to get health insurance they couldn’t afford wasn’t fear mongering?
Oh, and Obama’s Harry and Louise ads saying that Clinton would force poor people to get health insurance they couldn’t afford wasn’t fear mongering?
Because if anything is being said against Holy Obama , the God of hipness will smite them
Obama’s … ads saying Clinton would force poor people to get health insurance they couldn’t afford wasn’t fear mongering?
Clinton’s plan forces everyone to get health insurance. Some people without insurance can’t afford to buy it. What will happen to those people? I have heard that their wages will be garnished. You may call it fear mongering, but I call it raising a legitimate concern.
If you can’t afford automobile insurance, you can always refrain from driving. There will be no “opting out” of Hillary’s plan.
Hector:
You also can’t refrain from getting sick. And if you’re not insured and don’t have the assets to pay, guess who picks up the tab.
The ad is stupid but it uses fear/sad reality to ask you a legitimate question. It does not say if you don’t vote for her, terrorists will kill you. In fact it never mentions terrorism; it alludes to any issue that requires immediate national attention (e.g., natural disaster).
And if you’re going to vote for Obama on “judgment” you’ll need more than one goddamn speech in 2002 when he was running uncontested in a state senate primary. He has voted identically to Clinton on Iraq. He has stated clearly that he will move troops from Iraq to Pakistan and that he will launch missile strikes into Pakistan without regard to national sovereignty. Lastly, he has stated that he will allow Blackwater and other corporate mercenaries to engage in warfare for profit while Clinton just recently co-sponsored legislation banning all mercenaries from Iraq and other war fronts.
louise,
Good Lord. Any campaign will have the right to context the totally messed up system in Texas (part primary, part caucus). The “rules” there are a disaster. She’s not changing the rules, but making sure they’re legit.
Oh, and where was your outrage when the Obama campaign questioned the legitimacy of both NH and NV. In case you forgot the former was not only recounted but also blamed on racism.
Hector,
Educate yourself about her plan: it dramatically lowers costs, far lower than Obama’s and it provides subsidies for those who are poor so everyone will be able to afford it.
Jackson:
a word of warning: at Pandagon, no evil can be said about Barack Obama without being attacked by the holy church of Saint Barack. Even the obligatory calls on the very obvious sexism and ageism of the Obama campaigns have been nothing but a nod to the fact that Pandagon is still supposed to be a feminist website.
The way I am looking at Hillary’s ad- the USA already had an incompetent in the white house for 8 years and we have seen the result of that. But do not allow this to interfere with the wishful thinking that permeates the Obama church. As for Obama, he sure has gotten a lot of mileage from that one discourse. So much that people have forgotten his later declaration in which he “agreed with President Bush about the war”.
Obama is the Ron Paul of the left. An inkblot candidate for everyone to project their fantasies upon.
“And if you’re going to vote for Obama on “judgment” you’ll need more than one goddamn speech in 2002 when he was running uncontested in a state senate primary.”
That is SO right! Now if Obama was the son of an ex-POTUS, who had been a ne’er-do-well until he was in his 40’s, who ran an oil company into the ground, and then ran a third-rate baseball team, and then was placed into the governorship of Texas - well THOSE would be stirling qualifications to become president.
And the proof of that is seen in the last 7-years of first-rate presidentin’ that has masterfully guided this country…right into a handbasket headed straight to hell.
Well, so much for all that vaunted Republican judgment of character and good common sense…
“Jackson: a word of warning: at Pandagon, no evil can be said about Barack Obama without being attacked by the holy church of Saint Barack.”
Yeah, we’re all just waiting to see Obama walk on water, not just eager to dumb the current White House resident and get somebody who has at least half of a functioning brain in as a replacement.
I really don’t think anybody here believes Barack Obama is the perfect presidential candidate. But better him than any Rethug, and he looks better than Clinton has recently.
Is it a crime to say so?…