FEAR vs. HOPE - General Election Preview Courtesy of the Clintons

[Cleverboy]

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/02/29/clintons-daisy-ad/?mod=googlenews_wsj
Sen. Hillary Clinton’s campaign has launched one of the most provocative television ads this presidential election campaign, and already it is drawing comparisons to President Lyndon Johnson’s controversial “Daisy” ad in the 1964 campaign that suggested his opponent, Barry Goldwater, would lead the U.S. into nuclear war.

Senior Clinton aides disputed such suggestions today, with senior strategist Mark Penn saying the two ads are “not at all” alike. Communications director Howard Wolfson said the Daisy ad was apocalyptic and that Clinton is rather asking about national security credentials, which a campaign would be “derelict” not to do.

Clinton’s national security ad, “Children,” is running in Texas, and asks voters who they would rather have in the White House when crisis strikes.

“It’s 3 a.m. and your children are safe and asleep but there’s a phone in the White House and it’s ringing,” the announcer says as images of sleeping children are shown. “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 a.m. and your children are safe and asleep. Who do you want answering the phone?” The ad then cuts to a picture of Clinton working at night.

While the ad makes no mention of rival Sen. Barack Obama, it is meant to underscore Clinton’s case that she is more experienced than the Illinois senator.
Hillary's recent ad:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M70emIFxETs

Ironically, here's what Bill Clinton has to say about these tactics:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGW38Zy4bJo

Doh!

~ CB

[NAG]

At least it didn't show the youth being corrupted by the lack of a nannystate.

[atszyman]

I think Obama should just pay to have the snipped of Bill Clinton listed in the original post aired immediately after Hillary's commercial whenever it airs...

[Spizzo]

For those interested, here is Obama's response Ad:

youtube link (http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/tx_ringing_ad)

[Dont Hurt Me]

We have had nothing but fear pushed on us for 8 years, America is sick of this crap. I think this is a last ditch effort by the Clintons but its still a mistake. America is wanting to change this hence the support Obama is getting. There is nothing to Fear but Fear itself a great man once said.

[Desertrat]

The SweetSmellum underarm deodorant ads infer that, "If you don't use our product, you won't get laid." That's about equal in validity to campaign ads.

Campaign ads do give some indication of the character and personality of the people campaigning, and of their choices of people as staff who create or approve these ads. Still, what's primarily indicated is cleverness or cunning--or the lack thereof...

I want a box on the ballot sheet that says, "None of the above."

'Rat

[DakotaGuy]

"At 3 am your children are safe and asleep but there's phone in the White House and it's ringing!?!?!?" Who exactly is running her campaign? Fox news? Nothing like trying to scare people into voting for you. When things are getting a little rough just turn up the old "Terror-o-meter" Sorry Hillary I'll take my chance that Obama will do the right thing to keep our country safe. She really has picked up the old Republican/Karl Rove playbook on how to scare people into voting for you. I hope the tactic fails miserably.

[stevento]

wait hold on now
the daisy ad was not fear mongering
johnson's point was that if the other guy was elected nuclear war would break out and the other guy agreed and was proud of it.

[stevento]

For those interested, here is Obama's response Ad:

youtube link (http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/tx_ringing_ad)

that's also fear mongering
and i'd like to point out hillary also opposed the iraq war from the start
edit: but then again neither ad ever directly says anything about attacks

[iJesus]

that's also fear mongering

Agreed, Obama's response Ad is also fear mongering.

Here's how the campaigns strike me.

Obama, "Yes we can"

Hillary, "Yes we will"

McCain, "No they can't and they won't"

hehe.

I'd also like to add that Obama voted to fund the war.
Every time you vote to fund the war, you reauthorize it all over again.

[stevento]

true. their voting record on the war has been idnetical since obama's been in the senate
in fact their voting record on pretty much everything has been the same

[redfirebird08]

Obama should use this as an ad:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qe0BPwWAxnk

[abijnk]

Obama should use this as an ad:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qe0BPwWAxnk

I take it you didn't watch the videos in the original post? ;)


Check out this Mondale ad from 1984: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fu-2Ew1ijg

Adn she said "change we can xerox"?????

[Thomas Veil]

Anybody see this ad at the bottom of this thread?

If you sign up and use this thing, I guarantee you it will corrupt your data. :p

[solvs]

the daisy ad was not fear mongering
that's also fear mongering
So which is it?

edit: but then again neither ad ever directly says anything about attacks
Still confused. :confused:

and i'd like to point out hillary also opposed the iraq war from the start
No she didn't.

The more Hillary does this, the more I lean toward Obama. I had my doubts about him, and still don't support him outright, but he reacts so well to these. It doesn't a President make, but it certainly is an attractive quality in a candidate. Not so much with her, and worse and worse as she does this.

[it5five]

...but he reacts so well to these.

Bill Maher and his panelists talked about this on the show this week. How he manages to quickly respond to any attacks on his character/issues, often so quickly that his response is in the same news cycle as the news of the attack itself. It is very impressive.

[solvs]

Bill Maher and his panelists talked about this on the show this week. How he manages to quickly respond to any attacks on his character/issues, often so quickly that his response is in the same news cycle as the news of the attack itself. It is very impressive.
I haven't seen this weeks show yet, but I will when I get a chance. It is a nice change, and as I mentioned in another thread, he actually does so honestly and without as much ambiguity as Hillary keeps trying to make it seem. When confronted with the Farrakhan thing, rather than hem and haw, he simply answered the question and actually made her look bad while making himself look good. Something that keeps happening. McCain keeps putting his foot in his mouth when he tries to seem like he's doing that, and we all know how much trouble Bush gets into when he goes there.

I don't want to base my support on rhetoric and delivery, but it's a nice plus if the rest can be backed up by action.

[Cleverboy]

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/03/01/politics/fromtheroad/entry3896372.shtml
Criticism has been leveled towards Clinton as well, though, especially her claim that she is ready to be the commander-in-chief on "day one." When asked at the press conference if she could name a particular instance in her past that equips her to deal with a national security crisis, Clinton balked, saying, “Well, I was involved in a lot of the decisions that were made. Again, you are looking at it from the wrong perspective,” Clinton said. “You know, no one who hasn’t been president has done that, so that’s not the right question. The question is, what have you done over the course of that lifetime to equip you for that moment?” See... its responses like these that Clinton gives that seem so empty and vaporous.

QUESTIONER: Could you name a particular instance in your past that equips you to deal with a national security crisis?
CLINTON: Well, its not about the particular instance, its about what you've done over your lifetime.
HYPOTHETICAL QUESTIONER: Could you name particular things you've done over your lifetime that would equip you to deal with a national security crisis?
HYPOTHETICAL CLINTON: Well, its not about the specifics... its about the big hazy picture I'm trying call experience. If you don't mind, these specific questions about national security are a buzz kill...

~ CB

[atszyman]

Olbermann clip (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/23456568#23456568)

At 1:34 in there is a phone recording where John Dickerson asks some of her advisors the following.

Hey, it's John Dickerson from Slate. What foreign policy moment would you point us to in Hillary's career where she's been tested by crisis?

The response was 5 seconds of silence followed by the nebulous answer of her personal trials. Olbermann then goes on to point out that she held no security clearance in her husband's administration so was not present when the crisis decisions were made.

[IJ Reilly]

The Bill Clinton 2004 speech clip was kind of jaw-dropping. From what he said back then, he's obviously backing Obama now. You mean he isn't?

Incidentally, the infamous "daisy" ad from 1964 was run only one time during the campaign. It was such obvious fear-mongering and raised such a furor that the Johnson campaign didn't dare run it again.

[solvs]

Is it just me, or is anyone else a little disappointed that according to the results of the elections, it's very possible these ads actually worked? :(

[atszyman]

Is it just me, or is anyone else a little disappointed that according to the results of the elections, it's very possible these ads actually worked? :(

Either that or some conservative media (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/04/limbaugh-urges-listeners-to-vote-for-clinton/) actually managed to convince their listeners to vote for the candidate they think they can beat, and it worked.

I'd love to see data on which party voters affiliated themselves with and how they voted in the primaries, and whether or not people like Limbaugh had any influence on their vote.

I've heard second hand from the other Liberal in TX, that when talking with some GOP faithful at lunch one day they were convinced that Hillary couldn't win the general. If there was any sort of GOP vote that managed to push Clinton over the top, part of me wants them to get what they voted for and see them have to suffer as they watch Hillary be sworn in, but most of me would still rather see Obama in the office.

Since most of their plans are quite similar, I'd rather see the candidate who is spouting a message of unity and seems to be looking forward than the one who still thinks in the us vs. them manner and has played the fear card.

[IJ Reilly]

Is it just me, or is anyone else a little disappointed that according to the results of the elections, it's very possible these ads actually worked? :(

No, you're not the only one. I predicted that Clinton would take the scorched earth approach because it was likely to succeed, and she had nothing left to lose.

[solvs]

I predicted that Clinton would take the scorched earth approach because it was likely to succeed, and she had nothing left to lose.

Except for the Dems losing the WH, but based on her other recent comments, I'm guessing that doesn't mean as much to her as I'd thought.

[IJ Reilly]

Except for the Dems losing the WH, but based on her other recent comments, I'm guessing that doesn't mean as much to her as I'd thought.

That was always my point. It's long been apparent to me that she was more interested in winning the nomination than the good of the party. Sadly I think the "monster" remark which one of Obama's advisors was caught using to describe Clinton is not so far off the mark. I've always had the sneaking feeling that Hillary Clinton was motivated more by wining than any other value, and I see that suspicion being confirmed now. She's an old-school political street-fighter, and that turns a lot of people off, especially younger voters. If she somehow manages to win the nomination, I think she will have damaged the party's prospects for years to come.

[Desertrat]

Hillary is about as cold-blooded and calculating a political street-fighter as has ever come down the pike. Power is her goal, and anything else is a distant second. Good of the nation? Good of the party? Forget that! And Slick was merely her vehicle to get close to the power-brokers.

The only thing spontaneous about her is the choice of what to throw when she oh-so-rarely loses her cool.

She's all about control. She came up with the medical stuff for its power over 17% of the US economy, not because she gives a hoot about Poor Folks. She'll use any divisive effort to set group against group, with herself as some sort of healing Savior.

Obama's got his work cut out for him...

'Rat