A new commercial is airing from the Hillary Clinton campaign, this one called ‘Children’. The video shows a family safe and asleep, with a phone ringing late in the night. The message is…
While your children are safe in bed, there is a phone ringing in the night…<insert ominous breathing here>…your children are not safe…<insert scary music jab here>…unless you vote for Hillary Clinton…<insert crescendo here>…who knows the world leaders…
Okay, so there’s no scenes out of a cheesy horror movie, but I was half expecting someone to break into the house, grab the kiddies, and Hillary Clinton herself to come save the day wearing a bulletproof vest and sporting a 9mm. Check the video out for yourself:
In other news, Barack Obama has NOT released any messages scaring you into voting for him. He has not shown you how unsafe your children are unless you vote Barack Obama. No, Barack Obama continues to spread that message of hope that is a serious thorn in the side of every established politician. Only time will tell who the American public responds to…fearmongers, or hopemongers?
UPDATE: Politico.com has a new update, in which David Plouffe has dismissed this commercial as a non-issue and an obvious case of fearmongering:
“The ad has echoes of a famous “red telephone” spot that Roy Spence, now a Clinton adviser, made in 1984 for former Vice President Walter Mondale when he was seeking the Democratic nomination against Gary Hart.
Plouffe said dismissively: ‘Senator Clinton has already had her red phone moment, and it was the [2002] decision whether to allow George Bush to invade Iraq. She answered affirmatively. She did not read the National Intelligence Estimate, so she didn’t do her homework either.’
Plouffe repeated the ‘red phone’ comment several times, saying voters will choose based on judgment. ‘Do they trust the judgment of these candidates on not just red-phone issues, but generally, … both domestically and internationally?’ he asked.”
UPDATE #2: ABC has also picked up on the story, adding that George Stephanopoulos calls this the ‘nuclear option’ (or nucular option if you’re the current President). Here’s a quote from the article:
“The tone of the ad — which echoes the infamous Daisy Ad from the 1964 Johnson-Goldwater presidential race and the red phone ad former Vice President Walter Mondale ran against Gary Hart in their ‘84 race for the Democratic nomination — indicates that the Clinton campaign is pulling out the all the stops leading into the Ohio and Texas primaries.”
Also from the article, it appears Barack Obama has fired back in excellent form with the following:
“Addressing a group of veterans at an American Legion post in Houston, Obama said: ‘We’ve seen these ads before. They’re the kind that play on peoples’ fears to scare up votes.’
‘The question is not about picking up the phone,’ Obama said. ‘The question is: what kind of judgment will you make when you answer? 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.’”
Lastly, it seems that the ad was copied from the previous ad by the creator of the original himself:
“It seems Roy Spence, the creator of Mondale’s red phone ad, borrowed from his own portfolio in creating Clinton’s latest ad. Spence joined the New York senator’s presidential campaign after New Hampshire.”
That’s fearmongering you can xerox!
UPDATE #3: USAToday has picked up the pace with this article as well, noting a new response from the Clinton campaign regarding Barack Obama’s response:
“During a long conference call with reporters this afternoon, Clinton campaign strategist Mark Penn and campaign spokesman Howard Wolfson said they do not think the ad plays on fears — but rather raises a legitimate question that voters should ask. At one point in the call, Wolfson noted that Obama himself said today that it is legitimate to ask who would be better suited to deal with crises in the White House.
We then asked about the rest of Obama’s comments — that the ad plays to fears and that Clinton had her ‘red phone moment’ and made the wrong decision. Penn answered that he’s heard a lot of ‘talk from Sen. Obama’ but that when it comes to action, the senator often comes down on the same side as Clinton. Penn also repeated that he does not believe the ad plays on fears, and he said the Obama campaign is being defensive because it suspects many voters might agree that Clinton is the person they would want to answer that phone. “
I find the answers to be substandard. Wolfson notes that Obama said that it’s legitimate to ask who would be better suited; well, of course it is. But that is not what the ad does. Instead, the ad plays on fears, painting a grim picture of what happens when the world sleeps, and assures watchers that Hillary Clinton is best equipped to pick up the red phone. Penn fires back, saying that Barack Obama comes down on the same side as Clinton…he must have forgotten that Hillary Clinton voted for the war in Iraq, while Barack Obama has opposed it from the start. The fact that he comes down on the same side on some issues is good, they are both Democrats after all. But it seems on the most critical of issues. Barack Obama votes his conscience and with the will of the people, not with the will of other politicians.
Comment by Robin Laurain — February 29, 2008 @ 2:27 pm
Hillary has made her self look classless and non-presidential not only in this ad, but the last debate. She came off as a victim, not the next President of the United States. I want the first woman President to be strong, calm, and collected. Not sounding as if she were near a temper tantrum. Hill go home to NY, regroup, and learn from your mistakes.
Comment by The Womynist — February 29, 2008 @ 2:51 pm
So basically what you are saying is a woman president should be rosy and cheeky and ready to move into the white house and paint it pink? I’m not a Hillary fan because she’s stupid enough to stay with a man who humiliated her in front of the nation. But no one says McCain is throwing a ‘temper tantrum’ when he gets on his martyred high horse and huffs and puffs his way through every speech. Yes, isn’t it only right that the only prominent women politician should be scolded and sent to her kitchen? After all, we are in the great old USA where you don’t have to wear Muslim veils, but we sure as hell better not enter politics or men and womyn alike will tear you down to the scatterbrained, emotional, weak core that all womyn are. A bad politician is a bad politician. Period. (whether they have one or not)
Comment by The Mad Critic — February 29, 2008 @ 2:53 pm
Oh get off your high horse Womynist, we all know how you feel. I think Robin’s absolutely right (and I rarely agree with anyone as a matter of principle). If you want to show the nation that a woman president can handle herself, you need to show the nation a woman who doesn’t go into a desperate scare mode whenever she doesn’t appear up in the polls.
Relax, take a breather.
Comment by Homelife Aficionado — February 29, 2008 @ 2:55 pm
You know, this is a tough one. Being that Hilary is a woman, I naturally am gravitating towards her. I know that everyone dislikes her, but I agree that she only does all of the stuff other politicians do, and gets slack because she is a woman. Though I am a big fan of Obama’s messages of hope, at the very least, you have to admit that Hilary is one tough cookie. But in the end, when political enthusiasts spend their time bashing other candidates, I think it’s just as bad. Pick your candidate based on how they effect you, and stick with that. Otherwise, you’re just as angry as them (or the Womanyst).
Comment by Zoey — February 29, 2008 @ 4:08 pm
Hillary is not being picked on because she’s a woman. She’s being picked on because she is angry, petty, and has baggage the size of Manhattan.
Pingback by Barack Obama Counts on Hope, Hillary Clinton Counts on the 70s :: Mr. Kriticle :: kriticle.com — February 29, 2008 @ 4:19 pm
[...] but that somehow she’ll make it work this time. That somehow, she is the right person to pick up the red phone. But it turns out that she has focused her entire campaign on these main [...]
Comment by littlequeenie — February 29, 2008 @ 4:20 pm
Kinda wierd that she is in a pantsuit at 3am??
yeah, I want a president who has a hissy fit when she sees some campaign lit over her mandating health care coverage!!
I can only imagine what a fit she would have when someone disturbs her sleep - bomb them all!!! shame on you for waking me up!!
I can’t wait for the Clintons to go away
Pingback by UPDATE: Hillary Clinton’s Scare Tactics :: Mr. Kriticle :: kriticle.com — February 29, 2008 @ 6:45 pm
[...] February 2008 RELATED POSTSBarack Obama Counts on Hope, Hillary Clinton Counts on the 70sHillary Clinton’s Scare Tactics [...]
Comment by Jan — February 29, 2008 @ 10:02 pm
Hillary Campaign stole the 3Am phone call ad from an old McCain campaign.
Comment by Mr. Kriticle — February 29, 2008 @ 10:06 pm
Yep Jan, this situation has been so hotly talked about today that I have three posts with multiple updates apiece! This post has the McCain post that she stole it from.
Comment by T. Re' — March 1, 2008 @ 10:23 am
The obvious difference between Clinton and Obama is that Clinton is first a woman who is running for president while Obama is a presidential candidate who happens to be black. Hillary uses her gender as her standard and that’s her biggest mistake. Barack puts the issues of this country before his ethnicity. It is a step backward for all women. I certainly have to question ANYONE who nitpicks about being first in the debates yet aspires to the most powerful position in the world! The real Hillary is seeping through the facade.
Comment by Chris Blask — March 1, 2008 @ 2:04 pm
Hi folks!
Margaret Thatcher was a woman running for political leadership of a great nation. You did not hear the tactics nor the complaints from her or her supporters that you hear in relation to Sen. Clinton.
I am male. I find it offensive to be repeatedly told that I am incapable of making sound decisions because of my skin or my gender.
Inversely, I find it disappointing to hear others openly stating that they are making decisions based on gender. “Sexism” (like racism) is defined by making decisions based on the biology of an individual as opposed to their thoughts or actions. It makes no difference what gender you are when you make your decisions based on gender - it is sexism pure and simple.
I would vote for Maggie Thatcher in a skinny minute.
I would not vote for Sen. Clinton is she were as male as John Wayne.
-cheers!
-chris
Comment by Nisey — March 1, 2008 @ 8:47 pm
Hilliary has tended to portray so much of her insercurities throughout this entire campaigne making so many strong women look so incredibly bad. I refuse to stand for an individual of this caliber-just to imagine what damge may well exist if she continues any further. Step aside and let the stronger individual take the stand in which is much needed at this very time. Don’t lower yourself any further out of what ever pride that you are adhereing too at present. Please respect the fact and respect yourself that there is a more qualifed individual that can do the job and please stop hindering such a person and wasting your and our time embarassing this entire nation. I am appalled that one would reduce theirself to such a low status to prove nothing except make theirself look bad. Accept the fact and the truth and give America the rigthful chance that it REALLY NEEDS and stop all the prank calls and unnesscary drama in which we don’t need at this time, especially with the shape that America is in at present. It is drama of this nature that have caused America to be in this saddened status now.
Pingback by Hillary’s Dying Campaign Not Euthanized, Placed on Life Support :: Mr. Kriticle :: kriticle.com — March 5, 2008 @ 3:11 am
[...] seems that Hillary Clinton’s fierce barrage of fear ads, paint it black ads, Republican endorsement speeches, and “as far as I know” statements [...]