How this undecided former Edwards guy views the 3 AM ad

[Redbear]

I thought it was pretty good. It never occured to me that it was referencing terrorism. The crisis could be wildfires in California, a leak at a nuclear plant, an earthquake in China or a coup in a former Soviet republic. Stuff that happens all the time that the current occupant would likely sleep through.

You want a steady hand in a time of crisis. I thought it was smart ad capitalizing on one of Sen. Clinton's best themes.

I also thought the Sen. Obama response tying things back to Sen. Clinton's Iraq war vote was both very funny and very smart.

It hits on the difficulty of my choice. I like that Sen. Clinton has been in the wars for the past two decades and knows exactly what she plans to do if she is elected. But, Sen. Obama makes a very good point that she has sometimes fought on the wrong side.


What I don't get is:

1. The Penn spin that it is a positive ad.
2. The screams about fear-mongering and the comparisons to President Bush and/or the LBJ daisy ad.



For what its worth.

[Thrill]

1. Politics of Fear

People get angry when the Repukes do this. But its fine when Hillary does it?

[superkia]

46. Also remember that she had a fundraiser dinner for people...

from the terrorism defense industry along with her political friends that have apart in deciding giving out contracts for them. Even Colin Powell came out after that and said that its dangerous to create the terrorism industrial complex like the military industrial complex because they cant exist unless people are living in fear or we allow more false flag events. Yes I put in the false flag part in but he said terror attacks. Either way or fear mongering like the republicans do, tells you that she likes the new dictator powers bush has gave us and she wants to take care of her wealthy corporations.

[Malikshah]

2. Nice response-- as an Edwards voter I concur.

Would that cooler heads would prevail.

Rather-- this is the current state of the Democratic Primary process:

[leftofcool]

3. Another Edwards supporter agrees

[here_is_to_hope]

41. Make it another...n/t

[Political Heretic]

4. "It never occured to me that it was referencing terrorism."

That's where I stopped reading.

[Malikshah]

5. And that signature image doesn't reference Big Brother and fear?

Hey, pot, it's the kettle calling.

[Redbear]

10. I suppose part of it is that I've seen these type of ads done long before

9/11 and the scourge of the Bushites.

Walter Mondale did one in 1984 against Gary Hart.

Bush used them against Dukakis.

[bunnies]

12. same here. nt

[cbayer]

33. Think about going back and reading it. It's really quite good. nt.

[JimGinPA]

6. Maybe You'll See A Conservation Message When She Has The Howling Wolves In The Next One Too

:eyes:

[jackson_dem]

7. I agree with you. Obamanation gets hysterical anytime something doesn't go according to script

She hit him hard at his Achilles heel.

[Forkboy]

8. Is this campaign going to script for Hillary?

[frazzled]

9. "someone who already knows the world's leaders, who knows the military ..."

who understands the dangerous world. Those were the words used in the ad to suggest who should be answering the phone. And you don't think that ad had anything to do with terrorism or national security? You don't need to know world leaders or understand the military to field a wildfire call at 3 am. Incredible.

Perhaps you're too young to remember the significance of the White House phone--the famous "red phone" that allowed direct communication between the leaders of the United States and Russia during the Cold War. It was used during the Cuban Missile Crisis. It was (and remains, for older voters at least) the symbol of national security.

This could have been John McCain's ad.

[Redbear]

16. True. Sen. McCain has an experience advantage over Sen. Obama as well. n/t

Im sure you will see several such ads if Sen. Obama wins the nomination.

[frazzled]

19. And a judgment deficit.

[cbayer]

36. She is running against Obama at this point.

And she is in a very heated battle with a very worthy opponent.

Why should she not run ads that emphasize her strengths?

[Voice for Peace]

44. LOL It WAS McCain's ad (link)

John McCain: Who do you want to answer the phone?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPadP7eAO9Y

Hillary Clinton: Who do you want to answer the phone?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M70emIFxETs

Obama: I don't think these ads will work this time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXudjm0lx2o

[nonconformist]

11. This former Edwards supporter agrees with you. nt

[AnarchoFreeThinker]

13. maybe you'll see the whole fear thing if you watch the original....

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0208/What_is_it_about_3_am_.html#comments

[HCE SuiGeneris]

14. Hypocrisy

"Now, one of Clinton's laws of politics is this. If one candidate is trying to scare you and the other one is try 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."
-Bill Clinton, 2004

[Redbear]

20. Thats the way it usually goes

The underdog uses an emotional appeal and the frontrunner says "thats awful, Im about hope and all things positive."

[last1standing]

15. It could be any of the things you mentioned but it's still using fear as a motivater.

It's not OK for bush* to use our basest emotions (in this case fear for our children) against us and it's not OK for Clinton, either. This is playing to the worst in people and it needs to be denounced by ALL Democrats, not just those supporting Obama. We need to stop eating our own in this primary season and let the voters decide who they feel would move this country forward. All this ad does is put the seeds of doubt into the voters' minds about a well qualified candidate.

Fear tactics work, but not always in the way intended. This could lose Clinton the nomination and Obama the election. I keep wondering if that's what Clinton wants.... :shrug:

[DearAbby]

23. Here here, well said

Fellow Democrats should not be using this type of fear tactics against fellow Democrats. Who's side is she on here? When is she going to have Obama's face morphing into drooling terrorist? Question I am really asking, how low will she go?

Stick to the issues Senator Clinton, we have had enough fear mongering.

[last1standing]

27. Based on what I've seen lately, I don't think there's a limit to how low she will go.

I've never been "anti-Hillary". I respected her attempt to provide health care in the '90s and I had high hopes for her in the Senate. She's been a dissapointment in office so far and this campaign has made me completely rethink my opinion of her in general. I understand the desire to win and I know this isn't some little game of touch football, but she has gone beyond dirty tactics into scorched earth policy. She seems to be trying to make certain that if she can't win the nomination in 2008 that she has another chance in 2012 by completely tearing Obama down by the most ruthless means available.

I don't want someone like this to be my president. I've seen the results from seven years of it so far.

[Redbear]

25. Fear is used all the time.

I remember back in 1982 when Lloyd Bentsen was seeking re-election to the senate from Texas. His signature commercial featured an elderly woman walking to the mailbox for her social security check. The theme was the fear was that the social security check might not be there and that Lloyd Bentsen was going to make sure that didn't happen.

[last1standing]

26. You're talking an ad from 25 years ago.

I know that fear is used too often and I even agree that it can be used to make valid points. If Bentsen's opponent was suggesting privatizing S.S or cutting the payments (both of which repubs have tried to do) then it was a legitimate ad. However, if Clinton is suggesting that Obama would let people's children die because he's unable to handle "the call", then she is playing to the worst emotions in order to either win the primary or to make sure that Obama can't win the general election. Both disqualify her from getting the nomination in my opinion. Yours may be different. :shrug:

[Redbear]

28. Yes. Fear was being used 25 years ago and its used today

Where I think we part ways is:

1. I believe Sen. Clinton is saying she is better prepared to handle the call.

2. You think Sen. Clinton is saying Sen. Obama will "let people's children die."

Nevertheless, I appreciate your thoughtful response.

[BigDaddy44]

17. Okay, I'll put on my flame suit

Whats wrong with using fear as a motivator? Its a dangerous world out there. Anyone think something bad won't happen in the next 4 years? The real worlds a messy place, and someone is going to have to make snap decisions. Thats life. Whats wrong with pointing it out?

[frazzled]

18. It's the addiction talking, I guess.

After seven years of Bush fearmongering, how could you even ask this question? If McCain used this ad against Hillary I suspect you'd be yelling bloody murder.

As for your reference to "snap decisions"--that seems to be not what we want with respect to the dangers of this world. Clinton made the wrong "snap decision" on Iraq, after all.

[BigDaddy44]

21. Okay

China moves on Taiwan....what do we do? Iran moves on Israel....whats our response? Snap decisions. Yes, you may call it fear mongering, but these are real world things that could happen. Not likely, but possible.

The world will not get significantly less dangerous when a democrat is elected.

And I'll say it again....why would anyone yell bloody murder about an ad? Its an ad. What good does yelling do? This is hard core, bare knuckle politics. You don't yell.....you FIGHT BACK. Thats the way the game is played, and those who don't understand the game, lose the game. (John Kerry, Michael Dukakis, etc. etc.)

[SaveOurDemocracy]

22. Anything HRC does will be perceived, and spun,

in the worst possible light here at DUhateHillary.com

[theboss]

24. In all honesty, such an ad makes me think of McCain

I actually think he would be pretty good in a crisis. But then I stop and think that he would also probably be the cause of the crisis.

[babylonsister]

30. It made a lot of people think of McCain:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=4820706

[babylonsister]

29. Penn works for Clinton. What else would he say? nt

[pamela]

31. This Edwards voter...

wonders why both of them are letting the phone ring 6 or 7 times before answering the damn thing.

[maddiejoan]

40. heh

This Hillary supporter agrees with you!

The only thing I thought was bad about Hill's ad was it made me start yelling at the TV.

"Pick up the Damned Phone!"

[cbayer]

32. I am going to reply before I even read the other replies,

Because I think this is an excellent and thoughtful post.

I am hopeful that it stirred some rational and civil debate.

But I wouldn't put money on it.

So, gonna read the other responses now and will get back to you.

[Mezzo]

34. Obama said he doesn't know how he would have voted. (link inside)

First he said he would have voted for the war, and that we were all mislead by faulty intelligence. Then, he dials it back to saying he doesn't know what he would have done, and goes on to say it wasn't politically expedient for him to say he was anti-war.

Here is the link. Notice how Candy Crowley asks the question and that he does NOT deny saying it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lN30M6StFfk

I think they are both wonderful prospects. But he is being dishonest when he says he was against the war from the beginning.

[BeyondGeography]

35. The thing about her particular message is that it's worthless against McCain

whereas Obama's ad could actually be repeated against McCain. Start thinking electability; our nominee won't be able to out-experience or out-commander-in-chief McCain. We need to draw clear contrasts in order to beat him. Hillary just basically ripped off a McCain ad to try to make Obama look risky. Obama reminded everyone how wrong Clonton and McCain were about the key national security issue of the day. Advantage Obama, and not just for today.

[cbayer]

42. Respectfully disagree.

Clinton is running against Obama. We will draw a clear contrast to McCain once our nominee is selected. The differences between Clinton and Obama are so narrow, but those between McCain and either one will be huge.

She didn't rip off anything. She is trying to win this nomination and she was pointing out what she (and many others) feel is one of her strong suits.

Some need to be reminded that this race is still on.

[BeyondGeography]

43. She did rip it off

and here's the proof:

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

Which illustrates the point: What's the thematic contrast with McCain for Hillary? Her whole campaign has been "I've got the experience to be ready to lead on Day 1," and it hasn't even worked against a guy with far less experience. We'd have to find yet another narrative for her against McCain, whereas Obama can stick with what he has been doing. If you're being honest about it, this is yet another good reason why he's a lot closer to being the nominee than she is.

[AtomicKitten]

37. And Hillary ends her campaign playing the fear card. There is a certain symmetry to that.

[Cha]

39. Full circle..

Never veering.. One thing hilary did with consistancy.

[Johnny__Motown]

38. Vote for this candidate or die..... it is clearly the politics of fear (Rovian in modern terms)

[femrap]

45. Thx for the summation....

I turned off TV long ago.

I just wish all the hatred toward HRC....hell I'd take HALF THE HATE...would be focused on W and Impeachment.

And if I hear BO correctly with all of his compromising and religion....he'll let W and the evil cabal off the hook.

We're (as in the US) are basically toast anyway....the financial house of cards is over and BO will not be able to help you....and he certainly isn't going to care about single mothers.