MyDD :: Ooooh, Scaaaary

Ooooh, Scaaaary

by Todd Beeton, Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 04:51:47 PM EST

Hillary Clinton has dropped her final Pennsylvania ad and much as we saw with her 3AM ad, it's being criticized for playing the fear card. Predictably, The Huffington Post headline blares "Hillary Plays The Bin Laden Card" and earlier today Mark Halperin's Page headline read "Hillary Plays The Terror Card" but as you can see below, the only reference to moder terrorism is a quick shot of Osama bin Laden hiking. Hardly provocative or fear-inducing.

Watch it below:

More like something Billy Joel might release as a follow-up to "We Didn't Start The Fire," the ad documents one crisis or villain after another that the president, which, in Clinton parlance, is the "hardest job in the world," has had to deal with. And the final message of the ad:

Who do you think has what it takes?

Even Halperin seems to have thought better of his initial assessment, instead linking to Howard Kurtz's less alarmist headline "Clinton Challenges Obama's Readiness" and reporting that "Obama Campaign: Clinton Playing "the Politics of Fear" Like Bush":

The Obama campaign's full statement:

"When Senator Clinton voted with President Bush to authorize the war in Iraq, she made a tragically bad decision that diverted our military from the terrorists who attacked us, and allowed Osama bin Laden to escape and regenerate his terrorist network. It's ironic that she would borrow the President's tactics in her own campaign and invoke bin Laden to score political points. We already have a President who plays the politics of fear, and we don't need another," said Obama spokesman Bill Burton.

But is Clinton really being as exploitative of people's fears as Bush was in 2004? Merely because the ad references bin Laden? Personally, I don't think it crosses that line. Now, I'm not naive enough to think team Clinton isn't playing on fears to some degree here, but this is simply a variation on the readiness message she's been running on for months. And is playing on fears really off-limits? When it comes right down to it, both Obama's and Clinton's anti-McCain arguments, essentially McCain = Bush's third term, have played on people's fears that McCain will be just like Bush on policies both foreign and domestic. So, expect fear to be central to the campaign of whichever Democrat wins the nomination this fall. Clearly, whether it goes over a "fear card" line is in the eye of the beholder, I just don't think this ad does.

Tags: 2008 presidential election, democratic nomination, pennylvania primary, ad (all tags)

Permalink :: 139 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: Ooooh, Scaaaary (2.00 / 1)

so, BHO is now demanding that every ad Hillary runs has her in pink fluffy dresses and she has to talk in a lisp? After all he can't be havin' wit that thar wimmin's talking like she er a man or nutting lik that!

by zerosumgame on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 04:54:32 PM EST

Re: Ooooh, Scaaaary (2.00 / 2)

No, Obama is saying that Hillary has a lot of nerve invoking bin Laden when a big reason he is still a problem is because she enabled Bush's Iraq adventure.

She did not have the smarts to make the right call then....why would we give her another chance?

by JoeCoaster on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 05:07:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Actually (2.00 / 2)

Clinton was not even a small reason Bin Laden is still a problem. Bush's Iraq adventure was not effected in any way by Clinton's vote. Another 20 votes or so were needed to have even enough for a filibuster, and another 10 to actually block the bill.

Bush had already stated publicly, in any case, that he did not require the authority of the Congress to act, and his Constitutional argument on that score is not all that weak (compared to, for example, his FISA arguments or his indefinite detention incommunicado arguments).

Clinton could have immolated herself on the steps of the Capitol building and that war could've gone off as scheduled.

As a final note, there is, of course, no real reason to believe we would ever have gotten Bin Laden no matter what we did. We truly have no idea where he is.

by Trickster on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 05:22:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Actually (none / 0)

You mean to say that Hillary did not personally sign the order starting the war all by herself? Blasphemy...

No politician ever lost an election because he underestimated the intelligence of the American public. - PT Barnum, paraphrased...

by jarhead5536 on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 05:28:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Actually (none / 0)

If another 20 votes or so would be needed, doesn't that perhaps make her 1/20th responsible?

And that's assuming it's her own vote alone that matters, not the influence of that vote and that position.

by Aris Katsaris on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 05:37:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Actually (none / 0)

1/20th....interesting...how many lives is that?

by JoeCoaster on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 05:39:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The majority (none / 0)

of the Democratic caucus voted against the AUMF. What did they know that she didn't know?

"This election is not about ideology, it's about competence." -Michael Dukakis

by MBNYC on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 05:44:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That history would judge them all. -nt (none / 0)

by Dumbo on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 10:13:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Actually (none / 0)

What an odd answer. You're essentially arguing that Clinton is blameless because another 9 or 19 Democrats, depending on your count, were just as wrong as she was. Hell, by that logic if the Senate had voted 100-0 on the war authorization, literally no one would have been culpable. Who knew!

by HSTruman on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 05:44:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Actually (none / 0)

I didn't say she's blameless. She can be blamed for lack of political courage, and for not taking political leadership. Those are real charges and I won't make a peep if you raise them.

She just can't be blamed for the war. It was on, with her or without her.

by Trickster on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 05:48:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Actually (2.00 / 1)

To be serious for a moment, the sad thing is that we'll never know what might have happened if people like Senator Clinton had shown political courage and leadership in 2004. Because of who she is, she had a pretty big platform from the minute she walked into her Senate office. If she had lead the charge against that war vote, the result might very well have been different. 10 votes isn't really 10 votes in the Senate. A couple of high profile democrats defections against the authorization and I would wager the end result would have changed.

by HSTruman on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 05:56:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Actually (2.00 / 1)

Without the AUMF, we never would have gotten inspectors into Iraq.
We had inspectors not finding any evidence of WMD and Bush invaded anyway.
So I don't really think anything would have changed whether the AUMF was passed or not- he had already made up his mind to invade.
I don't hold it against John Edwards, John Kerry or Hillary Clinton.

"Who are you for? That is the wrong question. It should be who is for you?" HRC

by skohayes on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:26:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Actually (none / 0)

I know Im probably going a bit OT here, but part of what you say is why I do hold Edwards, Kerry, Clinton et. al. equally responsible and I can not forgive their judgment.

I agree with your statement "So I don't really think anything would have changed whether the AUMF was passed or not- he had already made up his mind to invade."

It was evident that no matter what, Bush and his gang were going in whether we liked it or not. But by voting to give him the authority to do so, all who voted for became equally complicit. If Bush was going to invade anyway, why give him any political cover?

As much as it pains me to believe this, I think most democrats voted for the iraq war because they thought it would be a cakewalk and they didnt want to be on the losing side of a winning war. Nothing more than that. And that makes me saddest of all for our country that war, death and destruction were taken in such a cavalier and politically calculated way. I made a promise that none of those people would get my vote in a primary again (no matter what level - but in a general against a repub I would forgive)

So there was no risk in NOT voting for the AUMF since Bush would do it anyway. Why enable him to do so? Why not make it as hard as possible for him to do. As Byrd said, why abdicate your authority in advance, congress is 1/3 the government and why cede that power when it wasnt necessary at that time?

Sorry, its just a very hard issue for me. I just have yet to find a convincing argument for me to forgive such awful judgment.

And please do not take this as picking on you specifically, that is not my intent. I just want to put out my point on your argument. I know its a tough issue for all of us and we each have to come to our own conclusion.

by pattonbt on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:09:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Actually (2.00 / 1)

The "I can't do anything about it so I may as well go along" defense somehow misses the point of voting against an "Authorization for the Use of Military Force."

Maybe the war would have gone on. But had she and her fellow Dems that voted in favor, it would be solely a GOP travesty. Now, she and the others bear a part of the responsibility for it.

What makes it even more unforgivable is that she voted against the Levin amendment which required President Bush to report to Congress about the U.N. inspection before taking military action. Levin characterized it thusly at the time:

What my alternative resolution does is as follows:

1) It urges the U.N. Security Council to adopt promptly a resolution that:

* Demands unconditional access for U.N. inspectors so that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and prohibited ballistic missiles may be destroyed; and

* Within the same U.N. resolution, authorizes the use of necessary and appropriate force by U.N. member states to enforce such resolution in the event Iraq refuses to comply.

2) It also specifically authorizes the use of United States Armed Forces pursuant to that U.N. Security Council resolution if Iraq fails to comply with its terms, provided the President informs the Congress of his determination that the United States has used appropriate diplomatic and other peaceful means to obtain compliance by Iraq with such U.N. resolution.

3) My resolution affirms that, under international law and the U.N. Charter, the United States has at all times the inherent right to use military force in self-defense, affirming the fact that there is no U.N. veto over U.S. military action.

4) My resolution affirms that Congress will not adjourn sine die so that Congress can return to session to consider promptly proposals relative to Iraq if, in the judgment of the President, the U.N. Security Council does not adopt the resolution mentioned earlier.

5) Finally, my resolution provides that the President report to Congress every 60 days on the status of efforts to have the U.N. Security Council adopt such a resolution and, if such a resolution is adopted, to obtain compliance by Iraq with the resolution.

Defending her vote against the amendment, Clinton said:

The way [the Levin] amendment was drafted suggested that the United States would subordinate whatever our judgment might be going forward to the United Nations Security Council. I don't think that was a good precedent. Therefore I voted against it.

to which her colleagues responded:

Other senators took a different view at the time. Senator Joseph Biden described the sovereignty argument as "specious," noting that President Bush had already announced his intention to go to the U.N. Security Council without "yielding our sovereignty." Senator Levin also rejected the sovereignty argument, saying that his resolution "doesn't determine that we won't go alone if the United Nations does not promptly act to authorize force."

Had she voted in favor of Levin, it may not have completely insulated her, but it would have provided a measure of defense against the argument that she gave the president a blank check.

But Clinton did what she thought at the time was politically expedient and safe because she knew what the GOP response would be; in fact, she pre-empted the neocon argument by taking up its mantle and claiming that we would be subordinating ourselves to the UN.

It was a telling moment that showed a precious lack of leadership. And it helped me determine who I wouldn't be supporting for the Democratic nomination.

by bookish on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:03:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Actually (none / 0)

Don't forget the Iran Resolution in October of 2007...even worse!

Obama 08!

by comingawakening on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:22:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

OooooOOoohh... Shiny objects! (none / 0)

As a final note, there is, of course, no real reason to believe we would ever have gotten Bin Laden no matter what we did. We truly have no idea where he is.

Not anymore, not for sure, we don't. But we did, at one time, in Tora Bora.

But Bush saw a shiny object and he just had to reach out and grab it (with bombs and missiles and thousands of American troops) and Hillary and a number of other worthless, useless Democrats voted to go after the shiny object, too.

So don't talk to us about Bin Laden when you were more interested in oohing and aahhing over shiny objects than pursuing Bin Laden. No matter what rationalization you offer for her vote, no matter how little importance you ultimately give that vote, the fact is, it was a vote for distraction from Bin Laden at a critical time.

And if you don't have a long enough attention span to pursue Bin Laden, then you shouldn't be president. Not Bush nor Hillary.

by Dumbo on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 10:17:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yes. (none / 0)

Any disagreement with or criticism of this ad is ipso facto evidence of misogyny on Obama's part. It simply can't be otherwise.

No wonder they call this the silly season.

"This election is not about ideology, it's about competence." -Michael Dukakis

by MBNYC on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 05:30:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ooooh, Scaaaary (none / 0)

God forbid anyone acknowledges that there are bad people in the world that must be dealt with. This does not jibe well with the Kumbaya message, does it?

No politician ever lost an election because he underestimated the intelligence of the American public. - PT Barnum, paraphrased...

by jarhead5536 on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 04:56:56 PM EST

Re: Ooooh, Scaaaary (2.00 / 2)

I think Lieberman needs your help convincing America that Democrats are weak on National Security.

Unable to rec or rate

Read this: http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/5/15/1427 30/254

by GeorgeP922 on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 04:59:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ooooh, Scaaaary (none / 0)

We have been successfully portrayed as weak on defense since, oh, the Carter Administration I think. Not saying it's true, just the other side has had success framing us in that way. It's real and needs to be addressed honestly...

No politician ever lost an election because he underestimated the intelligence of the American public. - PT Barnum, paraphrased...

by jarhead5536 on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 05:07:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ooooh, Scaaaary (2.00 / 2)

And HRC's solution? Move to the right. It's almost like a dance move for both her and Bill, really. Welfare is hurting us? Lets move to the right! Those pesky gays are a problem. Sign DOMA and...move to the RIGHT! Terrorism? Look out Iraq, cause we're moving to the R.I.G.H.T!

by HSTruman on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 05:10:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ooooh, Scaaaary (none / 0)

I'm sorry. Is there a signal in that ad of moving to the right? Please explain that to me.

by Trickster on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 05:23:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ooooh, Scaaaary (none / 0)

No, running ads that channel Rudy's approach to politics are a sign of moving to the left. Just like her war vote.

by HSTruman on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 05:38:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ooooh, Scaaaary (2.00 / 1)

you should educate yourself on DOMA

vote blue in 2008

by sepulvedaj3 on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 05:23:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ooooh, Scaaaary (2.00 / 1)

I know all about DOMA, actually, so if your point is that it's redundant legislation given courts' application of the full faith and credit clause, that's technically true. It was also a cynical and ugly thing to sign into law.

Also, good job with the legal condescension. Are you still a law student by any chance? Your comment makes think the answer is yes.

by HSTruman on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 05:37:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

A hit, (2.00 / 1)

a very palpable hit.

by along on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 05:44:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Recc'd for Hamlet quote. n/t (2.00 / 1)

Wouldn't it be nice if there were no rhetorical questions?

by Elsinora on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:37:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yup. (none / 0)

We have been successfully portrayed as weak on defense since, oh, the Carter Administration I think.

And the single best way to neutralize that is to have one of our candidates use it against her far more successful competitor?

"This election is not about ideology, it's about competence." -Michael Dukakis

by MBNYC on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 05:32:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yup. (none / 0)

if Obama is so successful, he can easily weather this without all the whining

by colebiancardi on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 05:34:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm sure he can. (none / 0)

But that doesn't mean that his path, and that of other Dems, doesn't become steeper because of it.

The guy's going to be our nominee. This isn't helpful for November, just in case anyone still thinks about that in the midst of the primary wars. She can't play this spot against McCain, that much is clear - he'd laugh at her.

"This election is not about ideology, it's about competence." -Michael Dukakis

by MBNYC on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 05:42:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm sure he can. (none / 0)

this guy might be our nominee.

by colebiancardi on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 05:43:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Fine. (none / 0)

"Might" be. Doesn't change the underlying imperative to not validate rightwing framing.

(cue grievance list)

"This election is not about ideology, it's about competence." -Michael Dukakis

by MBNYC on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 05:45:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yup. (2.00 / 0)

Please, with the whining.

All we heard for the first 10 months of the campaign was complaints about how Clinton was being mistreated. I guess you characterize that as being a "fighter."

by bookish on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:10:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yup. (none / 0)

Kerry ran a worse ad than that against Howard Dean in 2004(they morphed Dean's face into OBL).
You act as if ads like this have never been used by Democrats before.

"Who are you for? That is the wrong question. It should be who is for you?" HRC

by skohayes on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:32:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yup. (2.00 / 0)

Excusing Clinton by comparing her to the worst of Kerry won't cut it.

Face it, Hillary. It's over.

by dback on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:53:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That was Gephardt. (none / 0)

Before the Iowa caucus. Not in April, eight months from the general.

"This election is not about ideology, it's about competence." -Michael Dukakis

by MBNYC on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 07:01:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ooooh, Scaaaary (1.00 / 2)

"Kumbaya message"....you're confusing the Hillary spin of Obama with reality.

Obama's goal is about bring people of 'good will' together to move the country foreward. Hillary's "vote for me or get attacked" repug messaging is way outside the "good will" camp.

by JoeCoaster on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 05:02:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ooooh, Scaaaary (2.00 / 1)

Well thank God Hillary was here to remind us that Osama bin Laden is out there somewhere. You know, lest we all forget.

by jeepdad on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 05:14:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The Great Outdoors, By Hillary Clinton (2.00 / 0)

Hey, after all, Osama was just "hiking"...I think it was perhaps a message about being outdoors and how healthy it is.

Yeah, that's it.

by edmandspath on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 05:28:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ooooh, Scaaaary (2.00 / 2)

It seems like alot of her ardent supporters have no problem with our prospective politicians using FEAR PROPAGANDA to mislead the American public.

hmmm I wonder who has used that card before.

Absolutely despicable.

If you are a voter swayed by Fear Propaganda (especially the really cheesy kinds that use cheap stock footage from the early 90's) than please please please DO NOT VOTE DEMOCRATIC we don't support the RNC philosophy you subscribe to.
You obviously voted for Bush in 2004, McCain is promising 100 more years of war and fear and politicians running ruffshot over their constituents.

Unable to rec or rate

Read this: http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/5/15/1427 30/254

by GeorgeP922 on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 04:57:55 PM EST

Re: Ooooh, Scaaaary (2.00 / 1)

Obama's mailings about health care saying that Hillary's health care plan would lead to people's wages being garnished is another example of FEAR PROPAGANDA.

by steveinohio on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 05:57:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ooooh, Scaaaary (none / 0)

I watched her say she might do that or would be willing to on This Week one Sunday morning. That's exactly what he should be telling voters about. It isn't a scare tactic it's giving information.

by Becky G on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:34:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Do you really think these are similar? eom (none / 0)

by anevarez on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 07:52:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ooooh, Scaaaary (2.00 / 4)

How do you "merely reference bin Ladin"? I my mind it's just as bad as throwing out images of the burning towers. That's what she was invoking make no mistake about it.

It's the old "vote for me or get attacked" repug. terror card.

by JoeCoaster on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 04:58:03 PM EST

Re: Ooooh, Scaaaary (2.00 / 6)

The ad itself may not be intended to scare people, but theres no difference in the tactics that it employs.

It says look at all the scary shit in the world. Obama isn't ready for it, Clinton is. The ad is meant to remind people of scary things so they will go back to who they are comfortable with.

Yes, this is the fear card. Maybe your okay with it, that's fine. But it is the same as what Bush did. Its the same tactic, use bad guys to scare people.

by BlueGAinDC on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 04:59:39 PM EST

Thats a legitimate thing to say.. (2.00 / 1)

I mean, this isn't a high school popularity contest here.

public option=not affordable for middle. It cant cover all affordably, google adverse selection for why

by architek on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 05:04:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

This is a huge over-reaction (2.00 / 1)

We all know that Bush has over-used the fear card. The most egregious thing is the How Afraid Should I Be Today color-code, but then there is the constant stream of faux plots foisted, scary dirty bomb stories, leaked alerts, etc. Nobody wants that.

But to make it verboten to ever mention the actual things going on in the world that there is good reason to be afraid of is a huge over-reaction. We can't white-wash over shit just because it's scary. The public deserves to know, and yes, it should obviously be a factor in decision-making in a vote for President.

What Clinton did is a far cry from "the same as what Bush did." You can't have really thought through what you are saying before you typed those words, because they're not even in the ballpark of truth.

by Trickster on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 05:33:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is a huge over-reaction (none / 0)

Well if she's going to bring up Bin Laden, hopefully she's implying that she'll find him before she obliterates Iran.

She's really falling far from the wagon.

by anevarez on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 07:57:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ooooh, Scaaaary (2.00 / 2)

people are too partisan the question is what do the undecideds think of the ad?

if they don't see a problem there is no problem

if they see it as fear mongering, then it doesn't matter what her supporters say since she has their vote already. remember this ad is suppose to convince people to go vote for her.

Dream for tomorrow but fight for it today.

by TruthMatters on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 05:02:39 PM EST

Re: Ooooh, Scaaaary (none / 0)

Just sayin, it seems from where I sit that the majority of progressives on the internets truly believe that there is not evil in the world, and if there is, it's our fault.

No politician ever lost an election because he underestimated the intelligence of the American public. - PT Barnum, paraphrased...

by jarhead5536 on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 05:22:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ooooh, Scaaaary (none / 0)

Might be time to move your seat ;-)

(I kid, I kid).

If yer after gettin the honey, then you don't go killing all the bees.

by Fluffy Puff Marshmallow on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 05:46:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ooooh, Scaaaary (2.00 / 2)

Osama bin Laden is "hardly provocative or fear-inducing" according to Todd Beeton.

Um, yeah. That bin Laden fellow is a regular teddy bear. Gives me the warm fuzzies.

by jeepdad on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 05:02:51 PM EST

Seriously. (none / 0)

This ad is nearly identical in form and content to that anti-Dean ad run in '04. And that's not the politics of fear? Come on.

by kyle in philly on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:55:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ooooh, Scaaaary (2.00 / 2)

Why should I feel safe about the prospect of an Obama presidency when one remarkably tame ad brings this kind of reaction?

Do not Obama supporters see that constantly whining about how "badly" they've been treated (a joke, of course, given the MSM's obvious pro-Obama slant) makes him look very weak?

Do they not realize they're telegraphing what they think are their own weaknesses by these hysterical overreactions?

by Jim J on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 05:03:06 PM EST

Re: Ooooh, Scaaaary (2.00 / 1)

Good to know Dems cant count on you to stand up when McCain and the RNC pulls this stuff in the general.

How'd that silence to the Swiftboat smears work out J? Dont get into a "hysterical overreaction" Senator Kerry.

Hoosiers for Hill -- Barack Obama

by BWasikIUgrad on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 05:22:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ooooh, Scaaaary (2.00 / 1)

No, I'm not going to stand up in full whiny sheepocrat mode when a tame ad like this gets run. If you cry wolf too many times, that's a license for the real wolf to come.

I'll choose my battles a helluva lot more carefully than this, thank you very much.

by Trickster on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 05:35:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ooooh, Scaaaary (2.00 / 1)

Hey Todd, your candidate lost.

Quit the fake earnest hand-wringing "I just don't think this ad does..." stuff. Yes you just happen to push this latest thing through the exact same frame as every other tiny little nugget of news.

We know how to read. Put down the water, you've carried it long enough. Let's look towards November and see if we can avoid reinforcing every single bogus republican talking point in the interim.

by Flailey on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 05:03:16 PM EST

Vote For Obama And Your Children Die! (1.00 / 1)

Obama, Osama, whatever....

by bernardpliers on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 05:04:21 PM EST

Weak comment. (2.00 / 0)

Conflating Obama and Osama, as you do, even as ridicule, harms Obama.

by TomP on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 05:06:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ooooh, Scaaaary (none / 0)

It's a "look back at history and what the president has had to deal with" ad - I don't see it as playing the terror card. Overly aggresive Obama supporters love to blow things out of proportion because they are so singleminded.

by sunnyaz08 on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 05:06:06 PM EST

Re: Ooooh, Scaaaary (none / 0)

Singleminded? As opposed to the 25+ diaries on this site that discussed whether or not Obama gave Hillary the "bird"?

by chewie5656 on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:05:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ooooh, Scaaaary (2.00 / 1)

Obama camp is upset about that commercial??? You barely saw bin Laden. I think the Obama camp is getting hysterical now. They thought Obama was going to coast through this primary, but Hillary just won't go away.

Obama's actions and speeches over the last weekend have convinced me that Obama is NOT ready for the Presidency. And McCain is too old and mean. So there is only ONE candidate left who can actually make real change.

Looking forward to saying "Madame President Hillary Clinton"

by stefystef on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 05:07:14 PM EST

Re: Ooooh, Scaaaary (2.00 / 0)

LOL....Hillary's "actions and speeches" in 2003 - 2008 convinced me that she is NOT ready for the Presidency.

by JoeCoaster on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 05:10:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ooooh, Scaaaary (none / 0)

Hysterical? Like the 25+ diaries about whether or not Obama gave Hillary the "bird"?

by chewie5656 on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:07:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ooooh, Scaaaary (2.00 / 1)

Its another national security/Obama isn't prepared to be POTUS ad. Shocking. (snark)

Sure, there's something mildly ugly about implying another Democrat isn't prepared to address national security issues, but this is the only argument she really has. My bet is that the ad doesn't really change much, but we'll see. In the meant time, I'm waiting for the complilation on youtube comparing Rudy's primary ads with Hillary's. The similarities keep growing...

by HSTruman on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 05:07:48 PM EST

Of course it won't change much in the Primary (none / 0)

but every time she lowers herself to the Repug standard, the public gets yet another confirmation from a Democrat that, in general, Dems can't be trusted on this issue (except badass Hillary "obliterate the fuckers" Clinton).

by anevarez on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 08:05:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ooooh, Scaaaary (2.00 / 0)

I agree that it doesn't cross "the line." I just think it's a stupid ad. I don't think this will work like it did in Texas.

Jim Oberweis

by cilerder86 on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 05:11:35 PM EST

Re: Ooooh, Scaaaary (none / 0)

Forget how it "works" and doesn't work.

The fact is that offends the base of her party to no end and it belittles the idiots who would buy into it.

I didn't hate Hillary until I saw the 3 am add.
I can't tell you how many voters I saw, regardless of how involved turn on her vociferously.

We all seem to forget that alot of us, including me were supportive of all candidates, she threw everything out the window with that add.

Dont get me even get me started about her direct attack and hatred for all Democratic Activists and fund raisers.

Unable to rec or rate

Read this: http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/5/15/1427 30/254

by GeorgeP922 on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 05:23:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ooooh, Scaaaary (2.00 / 1)

I really don't understand how that ad or this ad is offensive. And I'm not trying to be snarky.

Some wingnuts/libertarians think that national defense is the only proper function of government. Hopefully, almost all of us are light years away from this position, but hardly anyone would argue with the proposition that it's among government's most important functions. And there are a lot of people, not just wingnuts, who think it's the most important function.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

(emphasis to security-related goals added)

One of the most important things a Presidential candidate can say to the populace is "I will keep you safe." And really, in a competitive race that's a meaningless phrase unless it's put as "I will do a better job of keeping you safe than my opponent will."

That's political bread-'n-butter. Candidates have to be able to go there, or they can't meaningfully campaign on an extremely important issue.

by Trickster on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 05:44:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ooooh, Scaaaary (2.00 / 1)

The problem is, Clinton never gets around to telling us how she would somehow protect us.

Like Obama, she has no credentials in this department. None.

So instead, she just flashes some scary pictures, and one of "Osama Hiking" (lol).

by edmandspath on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:01:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Well (2.00 / 1)

If she could buy 30 minutes of network TV she might do all that. But advertising usually doesn't work that way. Get some kind of impact out of a few images and words.

by Trickster on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:46:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

She's already explained why she's better on FP (none / 0)

you know, brokering the Good Friday peace accord in Ireland, negotiating for open borders (albeit a day late) in Macedonia, ducking sniper fire in Tuzla, etc.

Can Obama even imagine himself handling those situations as well as Hillary does?

by anevarez on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 08:18:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ooooh, Scaaaary (none / 0)

yes it is political bread n butter. But that in itself is a problem.

This phrase: "I will do a better job of keeping you safe than my opponent will."

is no more meaningful than "I will keep you safe." Our politics has devolved to the level of such empty phrases, divorced from any argument or evidence of HOW or WHY one candidate will do a better job than another. One says experience. The other says judgment. And that's all they say. No description of how a specific experience gives you valuable insight into a specific area of policy or defense. No description of how a specific judgment was made, and how that process can be applied to future decisions. (Although I do believe his Iraq prognostications stand as perfectly sound judgment.)

In short: our political culture is mortally impoverished.
Surface and perception are everything in our culture, and so they have become in politics too.

by along on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:02:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ooooh, Scaaaary (2.00 / 1)

The problem here is that Hillary has switched to innuendo and character attacks. "Bush's third term" is an attack on lousy McCain policy. It annoys me that Hillary is double-teaming Obama with right-wing media character attacks. She's becoming what I thought she had despised.

Jim Oberweis

by cilerder86 on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 05:18:26 PM EST

Re: Ooooh, Scaaaary (2.00 / 2)

Obama has been making "right wing character attacks" since the Iowa caucus. He says she "will say anything to get elected." That's exactly what the right wing attack on her will be.

I'm always astonished how blinded the Obama supporters are to the tactics of their own candidate.

by steveinohio on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:07:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ooooh, Scaaaary (none / 0)

He hasn't made a single one. I didn't like his anti-Hillary health care flyers, but it wasn't a character attack. I'm always astonished how people can disdainfully make generalizations about a candidate's supporters. I'm not astonished, however, by the lack of any examples. He never said what you said he said.

Jim Oberweis

by cilerder86 on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:43:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ooooh, Scaaaary (none / 0)

Have you forgotten Obama's "Bush Cheney lite" accusation last year?

"Who are you for? That is the wrong question. It should be who is for you?" HRC

by skohayes on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:45:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ooooh, Scaaaary (2.00 / 2)

oh my god. I suppose I should also be scared of Pearl Harbor & FDR too. After all, it is in her clip.

get a grip on reality people. She is showing HISTORY here and making her case. Just like Obama does.

she didn't show OBL for the full duration of the clip - I found the "out of gas" signs to be more compelling.

are the Obama supporters stating that we should not be concerned about OBL and get rid of the guy - finally? Fight the war properly?

by colebiancardi on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 05:18:31 PM EST

It's called lying... (1.00 / 1)

Hillary is not "making her case"! She's lying!

She is saying that "I can protect you from bin Laden and Obama can't". Do you believe that! What's she going to do to stop terrorism? I have not heard her iron clad, fool proof plan for that...have you?

by JoeCoaster on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 05:31:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's called lying... (none / 0)

well, she mentions it as much as Obama does

A New Intensive Diplomatic Initiative in the Region. In her first days in office, Hillary would convene a regional stabilization group composed of key allies, other global powers, and all of the states bordering Iraq. The- mission of this group would be to develop and implement a strategy to create a stable Iraq. It would have three specific goals:

* Non-interference. Working with the U.N. representative, the group would work to convince Iraq's neighbors to refrain from getting involved in the civil war.
* Mediation. The group would attempt to mediate among the different sectarian groups in Iraq with the goal of attaining compromises on fundamental points of disputes.
* Reconstruction funding. The members of the group would hold themselves and other countries to their past pledges to provide funding to Iraq and will encourage additional contributions to meet Iraq's extensive needs.

As our forces redeploy out of Iraq, Hillary would also organize a multi-billion dollar international effort -- funded by a wide range of donor states -- under the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to address the needs of Iraqi refugees. And as we replace military force with diplomacy and global leadership, Hillary will not lose sight of our very real strategic interests in the region. She would devote the resources we need to fight terrorism and will order specialized units to engage in narrow and targeted operations against al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations in the region.

by colebiancardi on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 05:36:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ooooh, Scaaaary (2.00 / 0)

ah....who really cares..
this is not going to change the dynamics of tomorrows 3%-6% Clinton landslide.
This is not going to fill the Clinton coffers..
This is not going to change the fact the NC debate has been canceled.

This is not a precursor of what Sen. Clinton would use against McCain because she will not be our nominee.

She will not have the money(especially after tomorrow) to run that many ads in the remaining primaries.
However...it was a clever move as it will probably be played on reg news and cable giving it free exposure.

No matter what gambits the Clinton campaign uses or how they are perceived by her supporters or detracters...the game is already over.

I actually think it is a good spot against McBush.

tap yer toes

"If you want to end war and stuff, you gotta sing loud"...Arlo Guthrie

by nogo war on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 05:18:42 PM EST

Re: Ooooh, Scaaaary (none / 0)

oops forgot the toe tappin link
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpBGRA6HH tY

"If you want to end war and stuff, you gotta sing loud"...Arlo Guthrie

by nogo war on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 05:19:38 PM EST

Re: Ooooh, Scaaaary (2.00 / 0)

When I first saw the ad I was offended, but it almost is a parody of itself and the entire genre of "ooooh scary." It is so over the top in how it piles it on.

What does bothers me about it, however, is it almost trivializes those events using real, historical footage in this manner. To me it shows a lack of respect from the geniuses who made it.

by mady on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 05:20:26 PM EST

Re: Ooooh, Scaaaary (2.00 / 2)

It shows a respect for history. Obama's supporters who say that events like Pearl Harbor, Katrina, and the Cuban Missile Crisis are irrelevant to being President are the ones who show a lack of respect to the well-being of Americans.

by steveinohio on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:10:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ooooh, Scaaaary (none / 0)

When has Hillary handled a crisis of Pearl Harbor magnitude? McCain wins the experience argument hands down over both of our candidates. Why doesn't Hillary play up healthcare, economy, environment or I don't know... her actual strengths. This 'strong on defense' posturing must be making republicans pee themselves with laughter.

by grasshopper on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:31:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Demeaning history (2.00 / 1)

Definitely not irrelevant to the presidency, totally demeaned by being used in ads. Just like shots of the WTC being demolished would be utterly inappropriate. Maybe Americans are just too used to seeing their precious symbols and history being badly appropriated for advertising. This is a political ad, after all, not a documentary. Find another way to get the point across.

by mady on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:40:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Demeaning history (none / 0)

One more thing. These events belong to ALL Americans, of all parties. They should not be coopted by any one campaign.

by mady on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:41:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ooooh, Scaaaary (2.00 / 2)

Todd,

To put it simply, "You're wrong." Anyone viewing that ad who comes away thinking it was some kind of benign advocacy of Hillary Clinton's readiness, has not been paying attention to the Bush/Rove playbook since 2000. It's who they are; it's what they do, and to see one of out candidates engage in the same kind of fear tactics, subtle though it may be, both discourages and disappoints me. As Democrats, we ought to fight hard and be tough against REPUBLICANS. Doing this to fellow Democrats stinks and will cost us dearly in November.

by randron on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 05:21:12 PM EST

Re: Ooooh, Scaaaary (2.00 / 1)

Did you react the same way in 2004 when Kerry ran the ad against Howard Dean that morphed Dean's face into OBL's?

"Who are you for? That is the wrong question. It should be who is for you?" HRC

by skohayes on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:51:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ooooh, Scaaaary (2.00 / 2)

"But is Clinton really being as exploitative of people's fears as Bush was in 2004?"

The best apology for Hillary is that she's not as bad as Bush?

The choice is simple: A President who voted for the worst of Bush's odius agenda, or one who didn't.

by Liberal Avenger on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 05:21:41 PM EST

The issue isn't so much that she's playing on fear (2.00 / 1)

She's doing it because she's unable to run on anything positive.

Therefore by running a negative campaign against hope she becomes the fear-mongering, cynical candidate. Like it or not, it will work conversely. It's the easiest and most rational conclusion.

by Tenafly Viper on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 05:25:38 PM EST

Re: Ooooh, Scaaaary (2.00 / 3)

If the guy can't handle the fact that beating bin Laden is a legitimate political issue facing the next president, then he has no business running for the office.

It is alarming how quickly Obama wilts when the attacks hit him. He puts in another lousy debate performance, but this time since he was a focus of the badgering questions suddenly ABC has gone beyond the pale. He can't handle scrutiny, and he apparently can't handle seeing bin Laden on TV.

by souvarine on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 05:25:40 PM EST

Re: Ooooh, Scaaaary (1.00 / 1)

If the girl can't run a campaign without lying about ending all evil...she has not business running as a Democrat.

It's the old "Bear in the Woods" tactic that is repulsive to progressives. Bush has been able to shred the constitution using those scare tactics. Hillary is following in his footsteps.

by JoeCoaster on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 05:38:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

How freely you let the charges fly (2.00 / 1)

What lie?

by Trickster on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 05:46:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ooooh, Scaaaary (2.00 / 1)

Telling that you can't see the difference between the Soviet Union, which had no intention of attacking us in the '80s, and Osama bin Laden, who most definitely does intend to attack us.

As I said, a man who cannot face the direct threat bin Laden poses has no business running for president. But at least I understand now why you support him.

by souvarine on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 05:48:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ooooh, Scaaaary (none / 0)

I agree that the ad is a mild form, but it is still accurately described as playing the "politics of fear," which is the well-documented Republican trump card played in every election and Congressional showdown (Protect America Act, anyone?) since 2001.

And for you to equate that with the "fear" that any rational person might have of an effective Bush third term is extraordinarily disingenuous. That "fear" is the deep concern with continuing on the wrong political and economic track, not an actual fear for the country's safety.

Democrats do invoke that fear, when they say that Bush's actions have left America "less safe." But that's as far as any Dem goes, and I doubt they will be cutting ads portraying McCain as a wimp, which is exactly what this ad wants you to think Obama is.

by along on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 05:27:00 PM EST

Re: Ooooh, Scaaaary (2.00 / 3)

Would you agree that Obama's ad that scares Americans into believing that Hillary's health care plan will garnish their wages is also the politics of fear?

by steveinohio on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:12:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ooooh, Scaaaary (none / 0)

not fear per se, but certainly economic insecurity. and I fully admit that it is attacking from the right, I deplore it, and I have long since asked the campaign to stop doing it.

by along on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:15:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ooooh, Scaaaary (2.00 / 1)

that's awfully fair-minded of you, dammit.

by steveinohio on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:18:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ooooh, Scaaaary (none / 0)

yes we can.

(I can be teasingly obnoxious too.)

by along on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:50:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

honestly (none / 0)

its no worse than Obama trying to pin Clinton and every other Democratic rep in Congress as the reason Osama is still out there.

vote blue in 2008

by sepulvedaj3 on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 05:27:33 PM EST

Re: honestly (none / 0)

I must have missed the ad where Obama said it was democrats fault that we haven't caugh Osama. Although come to think of it, Hillary certainly was on the wrong side of the democrats 50/50 split on the Iraq war authorization. Which, indirectly, allowed bush to shift our focus away from Osama and the folks who were actually behind 9/11.

by HSTruman on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 05:42:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Eh. (2.00 / 2)

We New Yorkers tend to pillory anyone who uses bin Laden in a cheap ad to scare people, but as far as the possibilities go, this is relatively weak tea. It's in poor taste, yes, it weakens our argumentative position vis-a-vis the other side, yes, it even makes newfound rightwing slant even more obvious. But a huge scandal? No, not really.

"This election is not about ideology, it's about competence." -Michael Dukakis

by MBNYC on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 05:28:00 PM EST

Okay. It is fear mongering... (2.00 / 2)

But that's worked in the past so the question is, do you do what's right or what works? And the ad does go the the question of readiness, reminding those of us who don't support Clinton that she was ready for us to invade Iraq.

by grasshopper on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 05:29:27 PM EST

In contrast: (2.00 / 1)

by grasshopper on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 05:34:37 PM EST

Re: In contrast: (none / 0)

You had to go back to 2004 for that. What about his current negative attacks, including his fear mongering on the health care issue? Obama's campaign has shifted to being substantially negative this week.

He was also the first to go negative in the campaign. I challenge you to show an example where Hillary said anything negative prior to Obama's claims that Hillary was "Bush-lite" in Iowa or his campaign making the argument that "she'll say anything to win."

by steveinohio on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:15:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: In contrast: (none / 0)

This is his closer for PA, which includes that inspirational piece from his famous 04 speech. I think it's a terrific ad.

by grasshopper on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:20:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Great Ad... (2.00 / 4)

Plays into her message perfectly...not exploitative in any way...

I've noted the Obama reaction gets more screechy and shrill the closer Hillary hits home...

By that measure this ad is a bulls eye...

by SaveElmer on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 05:35:01 PM EST

Re: Ooooh, Scaaaary (none / 0)

you should read the PoliticalBetting site in the United Kingdom which has been following the race

http://politicalbetting.com/index.php/ar chives/2008/04/21/hillary-plays-the-bin- laden-card/#comments

by albagubrath on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 05:41:44 PM EST

I find in oddly amusing (2.00 / 2)

that the candidate who spent the first 3/4 of primary season complaining about being picked on is now saying, "If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen."

by bookish on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 05:43:39 PM EST

Re: I find in oddly amusing (2.00 / 1)

She of "Why do I always get the first question?!" I'm still not sure what that was even about. She would have scored points in my column if she would have called out Matthews as a sexist rather than bizarrely complaining about response order.

Jim Oberweis

by cilerder86 on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 05:54:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I find in oddly amusing (2.00 / 1)

Well, since they had to sack a bunch of people at the top, the Clinton campaign can always claim, "hey, we weren't around when the previous folks were whining, history started 2 weeks ago..."

Kinda like Garin on MTP yesterday. "Tim, I, I don't, I don't want to--I, I don't--I'm here for two weeks now, so this was--comment was made in, I believe, at the beginning of March... blah blah blah"

If yer after gettin the honey, then you don't go killing all the bees.

by Fluffy Puff Marshmallow on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:00:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ooooh, Scaaaary (none / 0)

"If you can't stand the heat stay out of the kitchen?"

I'll bet this phrase was constructed exactly in the hope that some stupid sexist Obama supporter somewhere in the periphery of his campaign makes some stupid sexist remark about women and kitchens.

I just hope nobody's stupid enough to take the bait.

by Aris Katsaris on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 05:48:23 PM EST

Re: Ooooh, Scaaaary (none / 0)

it's already been done (in a way) by Michelle Obama

the statement of if you can't run your own household, you can't run the WH.

by colebiancardi on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 05:59:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ooooh, Scaaaary (2.00 / 1)

that phrase was constructed by Harry S. Truman.

but I agree that one of the things the campaign might be doing with it is baiting sexist remarks.

by along on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:08:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ooooh, Scaaaary (none / 0)

"Obama breaks promise to have positive campaign;
degrades into putdowns and jabs against Clinton

UPDATE #3 | With one day to go before a crucial U.S. presidential vote, Democrats Barack Obama has stepped-up his
attacks against Hillary Clinton after promising to run a positive and upbeat campaign."

Well, we can all agree that Obama is not using a different kind of politics or a different kind of politician.

by gotalife on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 05:55:58 PM EST

Bland (2.00 / 1)

If Obama cannot stand up to an ad like this, what will he do in the fall vs. McCain?

That said, this ad (and the Obama ad posted in comments) doesn't sway me either way. I like the Hillary health care and economic ads, which I find more moving.

by Coral on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:00:56 PM EST

Re: Bland (none / 0)

He'll weather this just fine....but that doesn't make this kind of fearmongering any less despicable.

The super-crappy quality to the ad certainly mirrors her lack of cash - that's about all I got out of it.

And he'll kick McCain's ass - right after Hillary.

by edmandspath on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:08:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

This ad is no big deal. (none / 0)

As I wrote in a diary on this ad, I don't see anything wrong with it. She has been leading with "experience" this entire campaign and this ad is kind of the culmination of that pitch.

Sure, it's borderline scaremongering, but it seems to be on message for what she has been pushing since Iowa.

I don't see why this ad is a big deal. I would expect McCain to run a similar ad against Obama based on the same claim of "experience."

As usual, the counter from Obama should be "judgment."

And he should add, "There was no al Qaeda in Iraq before Hillary Clinton voted to support the invasion of a country that had absolutely nothing to do with the 9-11 attacks."

His response ad was okay, but I would have focused, laser-like, on her war vote.

I am wondering if Pennsylvanians will see this as desperation more than anything else.

by Bob Johnson on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:05:51 PM EST

Re: This ad is no big deal. (none / 0)

Bob, is "Scaremongering" the Democrat version of "Fear Mongering"

I didn't know we added a new lexicon to our dictionary.

Bob, it's obvious who you support, and you have the right as every other human to interpret her message as you wish.

But you can't deny that she had Democrats foaming at the mouth when they aired that 3 AM add. I can't tell you how many passive supporters of HRC dropped like flies and how many Obama supporters took off their gloves, rolled up their sleeves and got to work.

These tactics might work on the most ignorant and ill-educated Americans, but if stereotypes hold right then they should represent a tiny fraction of our electorate.

The type of person that would say "If my canidate doesn't win I am going to vote for the other party" has NO BUSINESS in our voting block. They are dangerous and unpredictable people who in the end lack any civic passion and dignity.

Unable to rec or rate

Read this: http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/5/15/1427 30/254

by GeorgeP922 on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:20:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This ad is no big deal. (none / 0)

Yeah, after showing that ad, she won the primary vote in Texas, and beat him in Ohio. Even with her supporters "dropping like flies", she still managed to beat him.
The only Dems foaming at the mouth about the ad were Obama supporters, trying to drum up false outrage about a relatively harmless ad.
Sort of like now.

"Who are you for? That is the wrong question. It should be who is for you?" HRC

by skohayes on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:58:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ooooh, Scaaaary (none / 0)

She left out the snipers! She's pulling her punches.

by kitebro on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:07:14 PM EST

Re: Ooooh, Scaaaary (none / 0)

But is Clinton really being as exploitative of people's fears as Bush was in 2004?

YES!

by happycozy on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:11:24 PM EST

Re: Ooooh, Scaaaary (2.00 / 1)

All of the Obama blogs are pushing it as a "terrorize the citizens" tactic.
It's an Obama thing.

I wonder if all those people pronouncing Hillary is terrorizing people have doors and windows on their houses without locks. Isn't using locks a sign of living in terror?
Isn't joining the military a sign of believing in using terror? Kos was in the militay so wasn't he pushing that meme?

by Jjc2008 on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:14:15 PM EST

Re: Ooooh, Scaaaary (2.00 / 1)

I guess this ad is good if you think the War in Iraq is making us safe, or that we need a nuclear umbrella in the Middle East.

by Piuma on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:18:56 PM EST

What's the problem? (none / 0)

As an Obama supporter, I don't think this ad is a problem at all. It's not like it focuses entirely on Bin Laden. I don't think it's that bad.

On another note, I wonder why Hillary makes the reference to being in the kitchen when she got so up in arms about Obama's "tea with ambassadors" statement? I know it probably isn't intentional, but what a weird choice of quotes.

by ProgressiveDL on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:28:35 PM EST

Re: What's the problem? (none / 0)

It's a Harry Truman quote.

"Who are you for? That is the wrong question. It should be who is for you?" HRC

by skohayes on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 07:02:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ooooh, Scaaaary (none / 0)

Has anyone commented that this ad is laughably stupid? Invoking Truman? Exploiting bin Laden? That music? If ads like this are why she's in the red, there should be some angry donors.

Face it, Hillary. It's over.

by dback on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:59:10 PM EST

Re: Ooooh, Scaaaary (none / 0)

Another Media manufactured frenzy about nothing. Obama should be winning by huge margins with all the ass kissing the media gives him, not to mention the more than 2-1 spending advantage.

by NJDEM1 on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:59:31 PM EST

Re: Ooooh, Scaaaary (2.00 / 1)

Well, once again Obama concedes the national security argument. Screeching that an ad is "scary" does nothing to convince voters that you are anything but clueless.

No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!

by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 07:06:26 PM EST

Disappointing (none / 0)

As an Obama supporter, I found the campaign's response pretty disappointing.

I don't think of this as playing on people's fears.

I do think the campaign should have said something more like - that's right - who do you trust? And then make his judgment argument.

I assume they have internal polling on the 3 a.m. ad, though, and that the political types insisted that this was the response that would work best.

We'll see.

by TL on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 07:13:27 PM EST

Re: Ooooh, Scaaaary (none / 0)

Ok, I am done being nice. Hillary, if you don't get 60% or more in PA, then get the fuck out of the race. Immediately. Say whatever you want, - that you still think you could win, but for the good of the Democratic Party you will step aside.

I like you and Bill a lot, but you are going to make it much more difficult for Obama to win the General. You had your chance, but you chose a big state strategy and it failed.

by agpc on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 07:26:36 PM EST

Re: Ooooh, Scaaaary (none / 0)

Obama is making it difficult on himself. He's the one that keeps shooting himself in the foot.

No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!

by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 07:35:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I don't get it (none / 0)

Ads like this one and the 3 am ad seem to think that there is something magical about Hillary. Now if this were about 2 candidates where one could tout his great military experience, 4 languages, many years in the senate or as governor, versus someone with virtually no experience, then okay, they have something. If it were someone like Kerry able to say I got As in law school and went on to.....while Texas law school in his father's home state, while his father was vp wouldn't even take him in... okay that would make sense of this, too. But as I'm watching either of those ads, I'm not saying to myself --- oh, man, you are so right, Hillary would be much better at these things than Obama. And that's because neither has any relevant greater experience. So I'm left with the movie star approach --- who would make me feel better on a superficial level shaking hands with diplomats, etc. And beautiful, tall, eloquent Obama wins hands down. Have they really tested these ads?

by catherineD on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 07:30:16 PM EST

It's just the premise that doesn't make sense... (none / 0)

It's similar to the 3AM ad. But the typical answer for the end would be John McCain. If you're selling to someone that puts national security first then McCain is the answer. He's been working that turf for his entire political life.

You can make the case that it differentiates her from Obama but for me, Obama is a better answer than HRC. She hasn't displayed the skills and judgement that I'd want to see handling such a crisis. His campaign has been executed like a military campaign. He's made better decisions on staffing and strategy.

So, the ads don't seem to work for me... let's see what they do to the polls and the election results. Maybe they work for independents and undecideds but I think it's politically tone-deaf for a democratic primary. Against McCain it's insane.

by mcdtracy on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 07:37:41 PM EST

Re: Ooooh, Scaaaary (none / 0)

Please... McCain could've released the same ad and everyone on here would be erupting that the Republicans were trying to scare voters into voting for them again.

Warranted or not, using Bin Laden in a campaign commercial will automatically trigger those responses.

by leshrac55 on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 07:39:46 PM EST

Re: Ooooh, Scaaaary (none / 0)

There's a difference between saying terrorism is a real threat and I'm the candidate better equipped to handle it and what Bush et al. did which was to say, not only am I better equipped, but the democrats will surrender to the terrorists, your children will be raped/killed/bombed/beheaded--not necessarily in that order--and liberals are traitors, gays are deviants, and Jane Fonda drinks the blood of the unborn.

by bigdaddy on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 08:02:10 PM EST

Did anyone but me notice (none / 0)

that the ad does not mention, or even refer to Obama? To qualify as an attack ad, I would think it would have to - you know - attack the opponent. Kind of like this:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=cWvHbOoG3tI

Now THAT's an attack ad - the entire thing is all about attacking the opposing candidate, in the most over-the-top and hyperbolic fashion. You don't even find out who the ad is "for" until the very end.

Your attempt to change the subject to "the issues" is irrelevant.

by itsthemedia on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 08:54:23 PM EST

I've finally figured out what Hillary's question (none / 0)

was getting at. The answer is Harry Truman!

If we had Harry Truman as president with all his questionably profound platitudes we could finally get Osama bin laden. Although I'm still not sure why Hillary has been campaigning for Harry Truman.

by Tenafly Viper on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 02:40:51 PM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.