Advertising | Election 2008 | Hillary Clinton | News

Hillary Clinton Ad Depicts Candidate as Nation's Night Watchman

Clinton_children

A new ad from Hillary Clinton puts national security at the forefront.

The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder calls it her most provocative ad yet, drawing comparisons to to LBJ's "Daisy" ad and Walter Mondale's "Red Phone" ads.

AD: "It's 3am and your children are safe and asleep. But there's a phone in the White House and it's ringing. Something's happening in the world. Your vote will decide who answers that call. Whether it's someone who already knows the world's leaders...knows the military...someone tested and ready to lead in a dangerous world. It's 3 am and your children are safe and asleep. Who do you want answering the phone?"

Says Ambinder: "Arguably, this is her best ... argument .. against Barack Obama, and yet it's taken her 13 months to make it so explicitly."

John Aravosis at AmericaBlog thinks she's taking Bill Kristol's advice and playing into the politics of fear.

Effective?

AFTER THE JUMP, view the LBJ "Daisy" ad and the Mondale "Red Phone" ad.

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. Jimmy Carter was a good president, it's the country that was bad.

    Posted by: Derrick from Philly | Feb 29, 2008 11:57:59 AM


  2. She's on the phone chattin' with her girlfriends

    Posted by: marco | Feb 29, 2008 12:16:29 PM


  3. cynical.

    if she runs the country like she has ran her campaign and the healthcare initiative, we all are in big trouble.

    we need to leave fear behind...BTW, it is not inspiring.

    Posted by: ca joe | Feb 29, 2008 12:21:46 PM


  4. Saying that Hillary is more electable than Barack is completely ignorant. A lot of people, for some reason or another, DESPISE the Clintons. Abhor them. Plenty of left-leaning women resent Hill so much that I have heard more than one tell me they would vote Republican if she's the nominee. People do not trust her motives, and I am finding it difficult to find any voices that have such a visceral hatred of Barack. He may not be "experienced" (but who the fuck is for President?!?) but he doesn't offend large swaths of Democrats.

    Posted by: jeff | Feb 29, 2008 12:29:43 PM


  5. That's right Jeff, and I've heard of Repubs who are so disgusted with their party and inspired by Obama that they'll vote for him--but never a Clinton.

    Posted by: David R. | Feb 29, 2008 12:40:32 PM


  6. Jeff: "...but he doesn't offend large swaths of Democrats."

    Speak for yourself. There are many Democrats who are very much offended by Obama. TalkLeft.com is a good place to start to see what I mean.

    Posted by: Robert | Feb 29, 2008 12:45:27 PM


  7. First she releases the sash and head wrap pictures, and now this piece of crap. Fear mongering tactics, as called by NYT's columnist Bill Kristol described:

    http://www.towleroad.com/2008/02/towleroad-gu-10.html

    But of course the her raving fans won't call it that, will they. Who's REALLY drinking the Kool-Aid, gentlemen?

    GO OBAMA '08!!

    Posted by: soulbrotha | Feb 29, 2008 1:01:42 PM


  8. Wasn't just this past weekend that the talking heads in Washington suggested she start using scare tactics to win..... D~mn if she didn't waste any time. She's not showing effective leadership and until she does, she doesn’t stand a chance.

    Posted by: Bojo | Feb 29, 2008 1:02:28 PM


  9. sorry for the typos.

    Posted by: soulbrotha | Feb 29, 2008 1:04:39 PM


  10. She makes sense. She really does know the world leaders far better than Obama...and hasn't b*llshitted them the way McCain has...the ad doesn't say anything about anyone being attacked, it simply says that there's something important going on in the world.

    Go, Hillary!

    Posted by: BryanD | Feb 29, 2008 1:12:17 PM


  11. Guess I'm gonna have to pull out my stained blue dress

    Posted by: Maverick69 | Feb 29, 2008 1:21:18 PM


  12. Vote for Hillary or the terrorists win!!!

    Pathetic.

    Posted by: Dan | Feb 29, 2008 1:34:04 PM


  13. Dan:

    That's certainly not what this ad this doing. She has been consistent with her message on national security, and it has not been the main focus of her campaign. She is hardly fearmongering. To ignore completely the global issue of terrorism is naive and unfeasible: it must be addressed in an intelligent and thoughtful manner without playing the fear card. And I think that is precisely what she has done.

    Obama, on the other hand, has used the fear tactic several times. He has this message for the general primary electorate: you'd better vote for me or lose to McCain. He has this message for current Congress members: as superdelegate you'd better vote for me or you'll have challengers in the election.

    Posted by: Robert | Feb 29, 2008 1:45:37 PM


  14. To review my thinking process, HRC could not manage: (1) to pass the DC bar (considered "easy") the first time; (2) her marriage (even if you agree with her decision to let Bill have girlfriends, he violated the condition to keep it out of the press and it debilitated the White House); (3) the Rose Firm billing records (which mysteriously disappeared and then reappeared in her private quarters with obvious omissions); (4) cattle futures trading (an obvious pay-off since all trades were pooled and the profitable trades assigned to her after the fact); (5) health care reform (the sole policy item clearly assigned to her turned into a debacle by every measure, particularly if one supported her efforts); (6) a presidential campaign (she blew through $120m and a national 27-30 point lead and is behind in delegate count); (7) to follow the rules that Billary themselves established (HRC campaigned in Florida and Michigan and wants their delegations seated at the convention, despite violating several Democratic Party rules); (8) to vote consistently (she voted for it [fill in the blank, e.g., the war in Iraq] before she voted against it); (9) her campaign staff (filled with bickering and led by an incompetent who is rumoured to have gotten the job due to a personal relationship, despite having no credentials); (10) to formulate a back-up plan (when she lost 12 primaries/caucuses in a row); (11) to create some original themes and ads (stealing Obama's change theme and the pathetic 1970s style ad, supra); (12) to establish a working relationship with the military (the Commander in Chief must work with the military, not against them (had Billary established a working relationship prior to trying to reverse long-standing policy [e.g., gays in the military], it would not have resulted in the capitulation that is DADT). In sum I think that HRC is not capable of managing her own life, therefore, I do not want her having any ability to affect mine, because I cannot trust that she will actually deliver positive results.

    Posted by: rudy | Feb 29, 2008 1:48:00 PM


  15. Get a clue, Robert. Ads like this have nothing to do with policy and everything to do with playing with our basest emotions. She's been yelling that she's the most experienced candidate for the past year and it hasn't gotten her anywhere.

    She's getting desperate, so now she's playing on every parents worse fear. Let's forget rational discussion about how to handle the situation in the middle east... WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT YOUR CHILDREN!!!

    Posted by: Dan | Feb 29, 2008 1:54:51 PM


  16. “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

    Posted by: Sean | Feb 29, 2008 2:01:29 PM


  17. The fact that it's taken her 13 months to send out this message is exactly why she shouldn't be presidnt. Among the mistakes of this campaign, assuming she had it in the bag, spendin too much money on unecessary things, not attacking Obama on the issues, and resulting to attacks based on biases. None of that screams leader to me. A leader would have had a tighter riegn on her campaign, and would have stood on her merits to win voters.

    Posted by: Cadence | Feb 29, 2008 2:42:49 PM


  18. Obama responds to ad

    http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/29/114219/815/541/466280

    "We’ve had a red phone moment. It was the decision to invade Iraq. And Senator Clinton gave the wrong answer. George Bush gave the wrong answer. John McCain gave the wrong answer."

    Posted by: Jimmyboyo | Feb 29, 2008 2:47:34 PM


  19. Bill clinton responds to ad and endorses Obama

    http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/29/121832/712/510/466311

    "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. "

    That was 2004 Bill Clinton so by what he said then, he is endorsing Obama for president

    Posted by: Jimmyboyo | Feb 29, 2008 2:52:24 PM


  20. Dan, emotions are involved in our choices of candidates more than you seem to realize. We all, whether conservative or liberal, make our choices based on significant influence from emotions (even if we're not consciously aware of it).

    While the invocation of children is ridiculous, every politician does it. So I don't overly fault her for it.

    And to say that her reliance on experience hasn't gotten her anywhere is equally ridiculous. Almost 50% of the Democrats would beg to differ. You seem to forget, in your trash-talking of Hillary, that she has a base of supporters that is certainly NOT insignificant.

    Posted by: Robert | Feb 29, 2008 3:59:11 PM


  21. Oh, look. Who's that over there endorsing Barack Obama? Is it? Could it be? Why, yes, IS Senator Jay Rockefeller, chairman of teh Senate Intelligence Committee. Let's listen in for just a moment:

    “As Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I am all too aware that the threats we face are unconventional. They are sophisticated. They are constantly changing and adapting. And they are very serious. What matters most in the Oval Office is sound judgment and decisive action. It’s about getting it right on crucial national security questions the first time – and every time."

    “The indisputable fact is Barack Obama was right about Iraq when many of us were wrong. It was a tough call and the single greatest national security question, and mistake, of our time. Today, we remain a country at war, and countless mistakes over the last six and a half years have made us less safe. The stakes have never been higher, and that is why we must take a stand."

    SNAP! Well-timed and well-played, Obama campaign.

    [quotations stolen from http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/]

    Posted by: 24play | Feb 29, 2008 4:04:23 PM


  22. Oh, look. Who's that over there endorsing Barack Obama? Is it? Could it be? Why, yes, IS Senator Jay Rockefeller, chairman of teh Senate Intelligence Committee. Let's listen in for just a moment:

    “As Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I am all too aware that the threats we face are unconventional. They are sophisticated. They are constantly changing and adapting. And they are very serious. What matters most in the Oval Office is sound judgment and decisive action. It’s about getting it right on crucial national security questions the first time – and every time."

    “The indisputable fact is Barack Obama was right about Iraq when many of us were wrong. It was a tough call and the single greatest national security question, and mistake, of our time. Today, we remain a country at war, and countless mistakes over the last six and a half years have made us less safe. The stakes have never been higher, and that is why we must take a stand."

    SNAP! Well-timed and well-played, Obama campaign.

    [quotations stolen from http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/]

    Posted by: 24play | Feb 29, 2008 4:06:07 PM


  23. FEAR TACTICS-
    The Republicans have jammed fear down our throats for 8 years, it is why we are at war. It is why Obama is willing to go into Pakistan (if Pakistan won't do it themselves) without permission to get rid of Al Qaida. It is the reason we have The Patriot Act.

    This message says something different to me.

    History:
    When 9-11 happened, Bush didn't and couldn't respond right away. When Katrina happened he waited days before making a comment or visiting.

    I FEAR Bush's lack of response - lack of concern.

    Present:
    On Super Tuesday, when tornados were hitting the midwest, Clinton responded in her speeches that SAME night. Clinton thanked the voters for battling the storm and gave understanding and sympathy to those who lost homes and loved ones. It took until Wednesday for Obama to notice.

    When the motorcycle driver in Clinton's motorcade was killed, Clinton stopped campaigning right away to be with his family.

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

    It isn't fear that makes me want to know who is answering that call at 3 am. It's compassion and the belief that America deserves better.


    Have a Heart - Clinton '08

    Posted by: Bubba | Feb 29, 2008 4:22:10 PM


  24. CHIP: "Hillary is up at 3 am .......where is Bill? mmmm...maybe he is in the Oval office...with..."....Reichen?

    Posted by: Michael Bedwell | Feb 29, 2008 4:23:36 PM


  25. 24 PLAY, are you serious?

    Jay Rockefeller, a moderate Democrat from a socially conservative state. Oh, my. The momentum is definitely with Obama. Now, if we get old Robert KKK Byrd's endorsement, Confederate troops will be rolling in their graves.

    Posted by: Derrick from Philly | Feb 29, 2008 4:29:02 PM


  26. « | 1 2 3 »

Post a comment







Trending


« «John McCain Nearly Tells Crowd: I am a Liberal Republican« «