Hillary Hits Hard
February 29th, 2008 at 11:24am Mark Noonan
Real Clear Politics has the video for the new Clinton Ad: It’s 3am and there’s a crisis, who do you want answering the phone?
This is powerful stuff, and the Obama camp’s weak, “Hillary had her 3am moment when she voted for Iraq” just doesn’t cut it, in my view. An election between non-incumbants is more about where you want to go rather than where you’ve been - sure, the far left despises Hillary over her Iraq vote, but the broad mass of the electorate, even if they now wish us to withdraw, won’t view a hard vote at a difficult time as a weakness…though they will view an “I’ll pull out of Iraq, and go back in, if necessary” position as a wishy-washy attempt to have it both ways.
Right now, Obama still rides high and recent polls even show him ahead in Texas - can Hillary turn this around by Tuesday? We shall see.
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008, Democrats, War on Terror
25 Comments
1. Kurt Diekelman | February 29th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
Actually it is a very good ad. Problem is, the typical voter in the Democratic primary does not care about national security. They would rather the person who answers the phone has a plesant voice, as opposed to sound judgement.
2. DM | February 29th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
Interesting article in the news paper. Clinton promised back in 2000 that she would create 200,000 jobs in Upstate New York if they elected her to the senate. She said the Upstate economy was “the most important issue in this race”.
Records show that Upstate New York has lost 23,300 jobs between December 2000 and December 2007. A Buffalo news reporter recently asked her about her pledge. She said, “Well I might have been a little exuberant, but I thought we could do it”.
That question followed her to Ohio where she debated. NBC’s Tim Russet held up Clinton’s “economic blueprint” for the 21st century, the book of promises she says people should use to hold her accountable.
How can she promise the country 5 million new jobs as president when she has not delivered the 200,000 promised Upstate New Yorkers 8 years ago? Might that also be a “little exuberant” claim from her?
Her way of dismissing this was to state she though Al Gore would have been the next president and would have done what we needed to make the economy work. Forgive me but aren’t we at or near record lows for national unemployment? Hasn’t the national interest rate been at or near record lows for a number of years? Hasn’t inflation been in check for the past 7 years? Does she have another “excuse”?
She also blames high state and local taxes, high energy cost and transportation problems.
Well weren’t these “problems” there before she became senator? It’s not like they just cropped up in the past few years. And if these are the problems that would prevent job creation what has she done to remove these roadblocks? Actually, little or none.
Does anyone really believe her? From what I’ve seen it appears there are a good many who do not including Democrats.
3. DavidL | February 29th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
It has been said by some that Mrs. Clinton is smart. Yes, Mrs. Clinton’s daisy ad works - for John McCan. It’s three AM and the phone riings. What to expect from Mrs. Clinton - hissy fits and flying ash trays.
4. Kahn | February 29th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
DaviL, thats exactly what I was thinking. How nice of Clinton to run an ad for McCain.
5. Aaron | February 29th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
This kind of shameless scare-mongering may have worked 4 or 5 years ago, but today people see it for the sickening emotional pornography that it is. Of course, for the easily manipulated bed wetters here on B4V, this ad does have some effect.
Does anyone really buy that Hillary is better prepared to take a 3 am crisis call than either Barack or McCain? By virtue of what? Her having sat on this or that committee? Her having had tea with Musharraf’s main squeeze? She puts on these airs of being oh so much more prepared, and yet in the last debate could not remember the name of the new president of Russia.
Yeah, I can see it now. Hillary gets a 3 am phone call that Russia has launched some missiles our way. So what’s she gonna do? Call up the Russian president and say “Hey, er, whatever your name is, uh, this is Hillary and I’ve been on senate committees for years! I even got a girl-scout badge in foreign affairs. So you better not mess with me!”
Phew! Now we’re all safe! Thank God Barack Obama wasn’t the one taking that phone call!
Dream on Hillary. This is the last shameless desperate gasp of a dead campaign. Bring on McCain.
6. clark smith | February 29th, 2008 at 6:52 pm
Actually, the thought of our security being dependant upon either Clinton or Obama—at any time of the day or night—should scare all Americans.
That having been said, though, what about McCain? Would the aged septuagenarian even be able to wake up at 3am? How many Red Bull IVs would assistants need to get into him before he was lucid enough to call in an air strike?
Even on the campaign trail, McCain’s cadaverous appearance exudes an uncomfortable air of physical frailty. He has the look of an elderly man who should be ceasing his care and labor, preserving his ebbing strength, and enjoying the last few sunset years in quiet leisure. His physical constitution seems wholly insufficient to the task of leading the world’s Superpower during a time of war.
We must ask whether his depleted body would survive even one term in the rigorous position of Commander in Chief. The answer is, at best, uncertain. Even more uncertain is whether he would be able to maintain a vitality sufficient to “faithfully execute the Office of President” with a vigor commensurate to its awful responsibility.
None of this makes any more palatable the thought of an Obama or Hillary Presidency. What is does mean, however, is that McCain’s physical constitution should a matter of real and legitimate concern. Corollary to this, McCain’s choice of Vice President will be of much greater importance than is common for a Presidential nominee.
7. Kahn | February 29th, 2008 at 6:53 pm
Aaron - she would already be awake asking Bill where the hell he’s been all night.
8. Obama2008 | February 29th, 2008 at 7:42 pm
It’s unfortunate that Hillary took the advice of William “the Bloody” Kristol and adopted fear in her campaign advertisements.
Playing the fear card is a tired and beyond beaten to death horse of the once dominant GOP.
Remember that the Right Wing Noise Machine warned America that electing Democrats would elevate that San Fransisco liberal Pelosi to the speakers seat.
Well America, thankfully did just that.
Americans are looking for politicians to solve real problems of inflation, loss of jobs and income, environmental issues and ending the nightmare of occupying Iraq.
These made up boogymen of “terrorists” hiding under beds and behind trees just does not go over with the people any longer.
9. Obama2008 | February 29th, 2008 at 7:43 pm
Bedwetters Unite!
Hillary is the new Bush.
10. Kahn | February 29th, 2008 at 8:32 pm
Sure Obama2008. Wait till the “Republican want to kill Social Security!” ads start. And the “Republicans want to take away your welfare!” ads.
You people speak fear fluently.
11. Obama2008 | February 29th, 2008 at 8:51 pm
Kahn:
I will make a rare exception and acknowledge your post.
If ads appear warning Americans that Republicans wish to “kill” Social Security they will in this case convey the truth.
I hope Democrats run ads pointing out that very real fear that Republicans will in fact take away peoples’ welfare, in more ways than one.
Let the Dems also run ads pointing to the Republicans’ attacks on SCHIP.
Please, Dems, please run these ads.
12. Michael | February 29th, 2008 at 9:28 pm
I found the ad to be pointless and a waste of ad dollars. The MSM lapped it up as a tough strike on Obama, but he brushed it off. Hillary is in a box. Every time she tries something to attack Barry O, it either backfires or fizzles. Obama has been wize to mostly ignore her petty attempts and stay on message. The funniest part for me is that the Hildebeast keeps claiming 35 years of experience but she really has very little except as the wife of a powerful politician. This ad was a dud and probably cost her a lot of money. Barry O will defeat her in Texas and her campaign is already in chaos with finger-pointing, blame-fixing, and whining all around. She will not go quietly, rather she will have to be dragged out of the arena, kicking, foaming at the mouth, and screaming in her shrillest voice, “I know you are, but what am I?” I will savor the moment when it comes. I grow tired of her yellow, road crossing guard pants suit.
13. Almiranta | February 29th, 2008 at 9:36 pm
If I were the front-runner for the Democrat presidential nomination I would take strong offense at having my name used by someone whose posts convey such a distasteful amalgam of nastiness, inaccuracy, hostility, and irrationality.
Clearly the official line of the radicals includes the use of the term “fear-mongering” in any of its forms. It has been popping up in post after post, comment after comment, Agenda Media coverage, ad nauseum. You are all very good little footsoldiers, regurgitating your assigned talking points like proper little parrots—-but it is not only silly, it is hypocritcal.
The Left is running on a campaign based almost exclusively on creating and then promoting the illusion that America is a miserable place, a desolate place, a place devoid of hope, a bleak existence with no future but more bleakness, a pit of despair, a shameful nation with nothing to be proud of, a place of corruption and evil, deserving of nothing better than the loathing heaped upon it by the Left—-and in such desperate straits that all it can possibly hope for is CHANGE—any change at all, just please please PLEASE make it BETTER !!!!!
Fear-mongering is really announcing, day after day, week after week, that the country is in the throes of a recession—-when we are not. We have not met any of the standards of a recession, yet the Agenda Media are full of furrowed brows and grim announcements that the “current recession” is more important to people than the war on terrorism.
Fear-mongering (not to mention out-and-out LYING) is claiming that the “Republicans” want to DESTROY SOCIAL SECURITY.
Actually, every lie coming out of the radical Left is fear-mongering, pure and simple.
While the reasonable people of this country remember that nearly 3000 innocent Americans were slaughtered as they went to work one sunny day in 2001, that the leader of the butchers has never stopped gloating over that victory and promising more of the same, that there are a lot of violent people in the world whose only goal is to destroy this country and way of life, you rabid Lefties have the gall to call concern over more of this “fear mongering”.
You have no shame.
14. Kahn | February 29th, 2008 at 10:48 pm
Well there ya go Obama2008 - total crap fear-mongering. Thanks.
Democrats killed Bush’s bill to fix Social Security. Except for the OPTION to put SOME of your money in the market, the plan was EXACTLY THE SAME as Bill Clinton’s. Your side killed it, cheered, and offered no plan of their own. And, in the time they’ve been in power, they have STILL offered no plan.
Bill Clinton shrunk the welfare rolls more than any other President.
You know, it’s no fun arguing with an ignorant hack like you. Some liberal posters here actually give me a run for my money. Heck, some have even changed my view on things. Not you though.
Hateful and stupid are no way to go through life Obama2008 - expand your mind a little bit. Maybe read more. It may not make you smarter, but it would help clear up that ignorance problem you’re having.
15. Kahn | February 29th, 2008 at 11:07 pm
Wait, whats this I read” The Obama-Feingold Social Security act of 2007? Nope, just kidding.
16. js | February 29th, 2008 at 11:25 pm
I get so fed up with those campaign calls from New Jersy. All the double talk and wasting my time pumping fast talk into the phone line, omitting the very information that I need to make a decision.
The fact that the only reason they are calling me is to ask for money normally comes well after I have lost interest in thier spiel.
Whats wrong with “Hi, I am calling on behalf of (insert candidates name). Can we get 25 bucks from ya for the campaign?
They must all use the same training program too. Republican and Demoncrats do the same thing. I guess the idiot that wrote thier pitch just assumes we are all stupid.
17. Darva Conger | March 1st, 2008 at 1:29 am
Kahn:
I sure bet most Americans had a portion of their Social Security in the stock market over the last three months. The could be looking forward to eating Alpo each night trying to figure out how they’re going to pay $40.00 to fill their ten gallon fuel tank ‘97 Ford Escort.
18. Mark Noonan | March 1st, 2008 at 3:28 am
Michael,
Perhaps - but it might not fizzle. This is the serious part of the campaign…now, my view is that she has, indeed, written an excellent ad for John McCain to use against her or Obama in the fall, but in plain fact, Obama is a completely unknown quanity - we have no indications of how he’ll deal with a crisis. Thus, this is a legitimate attack and requires a serious answer from Obama - not “I voted against the war”; that is not at issue…what is at issue is what Obama might do if a WMD goes off in New York on January 21st, 2009.
19. FmrMarine | March 1st, 2008 at 9:33 am
DC
>>>>>>I sure bet most Americans had a portion of their Social Security in the stock market over the last three months. The could be looking forward to eating Alpo each night<<<<<<
Another lefty LIE !
tell us how badly the dow has done over the last 35-40 years
20. Darva Conger | March 1st, 2008 at 9:53 am
Mark:
“what is at issue is what Obama might do if a WMD goes off in New York on January 21st, 2009.”
I am 100% certain Obama won’t go off and occupy a nation that had nothing to do with a WMD going off in New York on January 21st, 2009, thats for damn sure.
21. LiberalNitemare | March 1st, 2008 at 4:40 pm
Why do you feel that way Darva?
Remember, it wasnt all that long ago that Obama was willing to invade Pakistan.
22. Michael | March 1st, 2008 at 5:17 pm
Mark,
The implication of Hillary’s ad was that somehow she has more experience and therefore was more qualified to make a decision at 3:00am. Thing is, she has no such experience. There’s plenty of evidence from sources like her Whitehouse appointment book that she never was the “co-president” she claims to have been. She is just as much of an unknown as Barack Obama. Just look at her conduct in the campaign. One bad decision after another. She single-handedly took a sure thing and turned it into a disaster. That doesn’t show me much. I also think you underestimate Obama. He’s young, inexperienced (like JFK), and in many ways naive, but he has managed the campaign in an excellent fashion and is 85percent odds winner according to polls. Also, don’t forget what Ol’ Slick said in October 2004:
23. clark smith | March 1st, 2008 at 7:11 pm
“It’s 3 a.m., when philanderers should be home. 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.”
Hill–This is Madame President!
Will–Honeybunch, this is Snookumz. I’m at the D.C. station, being grilled by the Vice Squad. Please make the necessary calls, Sweetie. ‘Fraid they caught ol’ Hot Pants with his drawers down again.
or
Chief of Staff, Janet Reno–I hate to wake you, Madam President, but there’s been a terrorist event.
Hill–Hold on. (Turning to Willie) Would you put that Playboy down? There’s been a terrorist event; what should I do?
Will–Well, call the Air Force. Just have ‘em blow up an aspirin factory. Worked for me.
24. Darva Conger | March 1st, 2008 at 7:22 pm
LiberalNitemare:
This is what Obama said:
“If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.”
If you get invasion out of that, fine. At least if Obama did take action inside of Pakistan, we’d be going after the inhumanoids that carried out 9/11 instead of what Bush has done.
I am confused why you conservatives are so interested in protecting Osama bin Laden. Don’t you want him brought to justice?
25. Darva Conger | March 1st, 2008 at 7:35 pm
Clark:
While it must be fun for you to invent NeoCon fiction, history recalls when Bush got his “3 a.m. call” he sat in an elementary classroom reading “The Pet Goat” waiting for someone to tell him what to do as Press Secretary Ari Fleischer stood in the back of the classroom holding a pad on which he had written “DON’T SAY ANYTHING YET.”
It cannot get worse than that.