Has the Clinton campaign really gone ‘nuclear’ with its new ad?

It’s just not that unusual for a presidential candidate to rely on the politics of fear. LBJ’s “Daisy” ad certainly set the bar, but we’ve seen plenty of egregious examples in the post-9/11 era, usually from the right (“If you vote Democrat, Osama bin Laden will kill your dog.”).

With this in mind, the new Clinton campaign ad, “Children,” which is reportedly poised to air in Texas and probably Ohio, is causing a bit of a stir. ABC News described it as Clinton going “nuclear.” Take a look:

If you can’t watch videos online, the clip shows children sleeping in their beds. With a phone ringing in the background, a narrator says, “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. Something is happening in the world.”

As the ringing continues, the narrator adds, “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 clip ends with a picture of Hillary Clinton wearing eyeglasses.

Maybe I’ve become desensitized a bit, but this one didn’t really faze me that much. It feels like a regular ol’ Republican ad, except a) this is from a Dem; and b) the ad doesn’t show any brown people we’re supposed to be afraid of.

On the political Richter scale, this one didn’t score very high for me. She doesn’t mention Obama by name, and this is just a slightly caffeinated version of Clinton’s message from the last several weeks. Indeed, I imagine that if there’s an Obama-McCain general-election match-up, we’ll see an almost identical ad from the Republican campaign. I’m almost surprised Clinton hasn’t run it sooner.

For the Obama campaign, which apparently was none too pleased about this new spot, campaign manager David Plouffe issued the reply I expected him to offer:

“We don’t think the ad is going to be effective at all. Senator Clinton already had her red phone moment — to decide whether to allow George Bush to invade Iraq. She answered affirmatively. She did not read the National Intelligence Estimate. She still, curiously, tries to suggest that it wasn’t a vote for war, but it most assuredly was…

“This is about what you say when you answer that phone. What judgment you show…She, John McCain and George Bush gave the wrong answer.”

I certainly understand the point of the fear-based ad. As Chris Cillizza put it, the idea is to get Dems “to take a hard look at which of the two candidates they want sitting in the White House.” For Clinton supporters, the ad suggests Clinton’s background as First Lady offers her insights that make her better able to answer that 3 a.m. call. For Obama supporters, the ad is a reminder that Clinton got the big question wrong, and that Obama’s judgment and vision makes him better able to answer that 3 a.m. call.

I’d be surprised if this ad were a real game-changer, but I guess we’ll find out soon enough.

I think that ad will be a dud. Very few people on our side buy that kind of fear mongering crap.

And those kids, the ones shown sleeping in their beds… They’re going to be paying for Hillary’s lapse in judgement for their entire lives.

  • If this is even remotely controversial, this campaign season has become way too sensitized. As Steve notes, Obama isn’t mentioned, there are no “others” – it is really pretty factual as to the importance of picking a President without going overboard. And it is exactly the type of ad one should and would expect a candidate running on “experience” to have.

    It may not work. People may answer the question in the ad “I’d want someone answering the phone totally different from who has been answering it the past 20 years.” But those are entirely different issues. This just shouldn’t be controversial at all, unless there really is a rule that you aren’t even allowed to campaign when running against Obama, you are only allowed to curl up and quit.

  • The unintended consequence is that, when Jake Tapper inevitably shows some of this on TV tonight, he’ll also show a clip of the LBJ daisy ad. That will turn this into the daisy ad, even though though it’s (a bit) milder.

  • That’s just an ineffective ad. It makes it look like Hillary Clinton never sleeps and is siting up at 3 AM wearing a suit.

  • The ad is very similar to one that Mondale used against Hart in the 1984 primary. Called “The Red Phone” ad, it shows a red phone ringing at night in a place that one could imagine is the White House. It asks viewers who they want to answer that phone at that critical moment.

    I’m surprised that Clinton didn’t ask Obama, “Where’s the beef?” This primary has a key similarity with the Mondale-Hart election – experience versus charisma. I think the party picked the wrong candidate that year (except that Hart was likely to get himself in more trouble with his womanizing).

    There is a great website called The Living Room Candidate that has an archive of old presdiential TV ads that you can watch online.

    http://livingroomcandidate.movingimage.us/

  • It feels like a regular ol’ Republican ad

    That sums it up. It might not faze people that much, but I would hope for a better outlook than this on national security. This type of fear mongering is nothing new for Clinton, as I noted in my post on the ad:

    http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=2976

    The post came to the same answer as doubtful in comment #2 above.

  • A week or so ago Bill Kristol appeared on the Faux News Channel and advised Hillary to use the “politics of fear” against Obama.

    Just saying.

  • It feels like a Republican ad to me, too, but for a different reason. It’s the Mommy party vs Daddy party dynamic at work here. It’s aimed at the type of person who thinks the President is omniscient and omnipotent, who makes world changing decisions in the spur of the moment without consulting experts or having to learn the context of world affairs on a daily basis. Just scream, and Daddy will make everything fine again. Unfortunately, Clinton, no doubt with the advise of people like Penn and Ickes, tends to reach out to this kind of audience.

  • If that’s the best Hillary The Loser can do, then it proves my contention that their OODA loop has “gone non-linear” and that they have descended into moral failure.

    How these pathetic schmucks were ever thought capable of forming a government is beyond me – they can’t even campaign right.

    Thanks Hillary, for setting back the cause of women in high elected office in the United States a generation. That’s some accomplishment, that is.

  • tom @ 6, thanks for that reminder – i think the wrong candidate won that nomination, and i think Hart would have made a visionary President.

    unfortunately, he would also have gotten the intern issue out of the way before Clinton ever got there. but he is one seriously bright guy.

    and that is part of why the “Where’s the Beef” still irritates me to this day. Hart had more policy “beef” than Mondale could ever dream of.

  • starfleet_dude said:

    Who do you want answering the phone?

    Bill Clinton, of course.

    Sorry. Bill is out right now.

    I want someone who can answer the phone in 3 rings and not 5.

  • I’d prefer someone who didn’t need to answer the phone at 3 a.m. because he had already impressed the world with his openness to the possibilities of the 21st century, because he had already read the intelligence reports, because he had a functional diplomatic corps, because the United States under him had found more useful things to do with a trillion dollars and the largest defense establishment in the world than get bogged down in a pointless quagmire which offends one billion people.

    Obama. Yes. We. Can.

  • There’s nothing wrong with the ad, but it does provide an opportunity for some knee-jerk Hillary bashing. NOKIYC (Nothings Okay if you’re Clinton)

  • I agree. It’s a pretty weak ad. It’s hard to even know it’s from the Hillary campaign…

    Still offensively plays the fear card, but, to what end?

  • “The unintended consequence is that…..”

    Don’t count on it. The Cinton campaign may not be able to manage delegate counts, but they know as much as anybody about Media reaction. I think that’s the only way that this add makes any sense. Otherwise, this looks like an add they had in the can for the general election and they felt that this was going to be their last opportunity to run it.

    If I was a Clinton donor, I’d be pi**ed!

  • The ad itself is pretty mild. What could make it effective is that it dovetails with the GOP attacks now coming hard at Obama. He can tout his judgment, but it still hasn’t been determined whether that will hold up in the general against McCain and the Rep. machine. Obama will win on the merits, but unless he can muster the kind of multi-front attacks we’re seeing now against him, there’s a real concern he’ll lose the election. This might sway some voters on Tuesday. Of course, I doubt Hillary can hold up any better, especially considering all the baggage she’s got. I’ve been impressed by the Obama rapid response team. I’d like to see his attack squad in action, too.

  • For some reason some not all Obama supporters believe trashing Hillary helps his campaign. I personally don’t subscribe to that thinking but I guess it could work to pi** off half the democratic voters. Time will tell.

    I know it isn’t working in FL by the latest poll.

  • I thought it was an X-files alien abduction scene. In the event of alien abduction I want Mulder and Scully to answer the phone at 3 am. Not the fully dressed and made up HRC robot that appears to be on the night shift at the white house. You can’t trust robots. They’re out to get us.

  • Seriously, after the lessons of Cheney, Rice and Rumsfeld, do any of us still believe that experience is the most important quality to look for in a nominee?

  • I agree that the ad is mild (subtle), but it does fall into the category of fear mongering & innuendo, rather than issues or facts. It is based on the oft repeated phrase by Clinton about Clinton that she is the only one ready on day 1.

    But this is a planted misperception and ludicrous of course.

    When you hear Obama’s command of the facts and the history and the players you realize that he is much more in command. When you compare their campaigns you realize that he is much more in command.

    Then too, he doesn’t feel the need to prove his aggressiveness at all, which I sometimes think that Clinton does. Given that supposition we would all prefer Obama to answer that phone because he would not be as subject to premature er ah…shooting.

  • Sorry. Bill is out right now.

    I want someone who can answer the phone in 3 rings and not 5.

    Better Republican trolls, please. The current ones are humor impaired… 😉

  • For some reason some not all Obama supporters believe trashing Hillary helps his campaign. I personally don’t subscribe to that thinking but I guess it could work to pi** off half the democratic voters. Time will tell.

    Jim, this is one of the most civilized primaries in history, despite how long it’s dragging on compared to most primaries. I think most Democrats are far more thick-skinned than you’re being so I’m not too worried. If you can’t handle even this level of rough-and-tumble you need to take a break from politics.

  • Interesting. Andrew Sullivan, who usually has severe Hillary Derangement Syndrome, likes her new ad.

  • Ah…Skully and Mulder. And Clinton is the supreme Vagina Dentata.

    I, too, don’t think this is reminiscent of Daisy at all. It’s much more subtle. That said, it wouldn’t sway me from one candidate to another.

    If experience is a driving factor, Cheney, Rummy, Powell and others come to mind…and I’ve had it with experience. The president is supposed to be a diplomat, head of state, and someone who works for the American people. From what I have seen, those with experience (of late) seem to do anything but.

    Look at McCain’s experience. Do we want that? HA! I don’t!!

    http://manifestlyso.wordpress.com/2008/02/27/mcdepends/

    I’ve had enough of experience, thank you.

    Give me someone with detente, an understanding of the importance of same, and a good head on their shoulders.

    I’m not saying that isn’t Clinton, but it’s surely not showing up clearly in recent times.

  • Democrats using fear is like republicans using satire. It does not work.

    So this week we have Hillary with the scary ads and green issues. To little too late. Why she didn’t bust out the green issues sooner is a mystery. She would have gotten a whole segment of the population, like myself, that is very disappointed the green issues have all but been forgotten.

  • Tom Cleaver:

    that they (Clinton campaign) have descended into moral failure.

    Yup. This has been so for quite some time. They’ve tried muscling the superdelegates. They’ve angled to change the rules regarding MI and FL. They are thinking of lawsuits in Texas. They’ve already thrown the negative kitchen sink at Barack. And now they are throwing the positive kitchen sink at voters. Remember this from yesterday:

    Clinton is offering a plan this afternoon on reducing childhood poverty, including a “‘comprehensive’ early education initiative that starts with nurse’s visits for pregnant women, lets children begin the Head Start program earlier and calls for universal pre-kindergarten programs. The New York senator also says she would deal with childhood hunger by putting in place a food safety net, and give children ‘greater access to healthy, fresh food.’”

    What no free nanny too?
    Clintons have reached the stage will they will promise everything now to everyone. Several weeks back they were warning us about false hopes. Tomorrow I expect they to suggest free beer on Thursday for all single parents…

    Looky: I am not saying the above isn’t an honorable plan.
    But this is the moment when democrats get themselves in trouble. Like McGovern’s $1000 grant and his plan of “a 37% reduction in defense spending over three years.” The more you specifically promise the more you will have to defend in the General. The country is broke. Individuals are broke. This will have an effect on people’s thinking in the Fall. The Democrat party has to be very selective about what “new liberal giveaways” they put in their platform. Very selective.

    The Clinton’s have moved past wise selectivity. They are now heavily into the amoral desperation stage. They will promise all things to all people. Damn the fact that such promises will make the Fall election a harder sell. Who cares now about that? Full spuriousness ahead.

    Anything to win now.
    Even if it increases the chances of a loss in November.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_McGovern#1984_Presidential_campaign

  • Scott, granted I have not watched all the (cough cough ) “debates,” but I have heard Obama talk a couple of different times about green technology and green jobs.

    I heard Clinton do a couple flying passes, too, but from what I recall, Obama had more to say about it.

  • ROTFLMLiberalAO said:
    Tom Cleaver:
    that they (Clinton campaign) have descended into moral failure.

    Yup.

    Jeez, you might know these two would get together.

  • If you’re for green issues, Ralph Nader, once the Green Party candidate, is the one to turn to.

    Ralph Nader. A progressive you can count on out.

  • “who already knows the world’s leaders”

    Pretty feeble. The argument is that I’ve met the leaders before? That actually underscores our problem – we tend to view foreign policy from a top-down view. Obama will (or at least says he will) encourage building democratic institutions around the world. Big difference in attitude.

  • I am already seeing the VOTE NADER crap around the blogosphere.

    We of the shiny objects fame.

    But hey, American Idol is back on. Oooooooohhhh!

    And I do have to say what is thoroughly pissing me off about Clinton’s campaigning is that she’s not only mirroring gooper talking points, but giving them so much fodder that I expect if Obama wins the primary, the goopers are going to use her clips in their ads.

    Sad and disparaging.

  • I wonder if they really polled people to find out whether it’s HIllary they’d want. Frankly, I’d expect this ad to help McCain more than Hillary. Because the sight of a woman answering the phone who last time she was in the nation’s eye was just a First Lady doesn’t cut it for me. (Oh, Wes Clark, why couldn’t it be you? Sigh.) I just don’t think Hillary’s got a strong enough association with experience — despite her efforts — to have this work, especially because of her sex. Got to wonder how many people will come away from the ad thinking, “No, I’d rather it was Obama if it’s some kind of world crisis.” Or, of course, McCain.

  • My immediate reaction to that ad is also, “Obama, of course”.

    If you’ll pardon an overly grim observation, since our last discussion of whether Hillary could ever be Obama’s VP (or vice versa), it has occurred to me that Hillary would be the ideal VP candidate for Obama, if only in terms of insurance against impeachment or worse. Obama can probably win the general election no matter who his VP is, and once Obama is in office with Hillary as VP, no right wing nutjob and (if Hillary keeps pulling these kind of stunts) only a few democrats will ever want to do anything that exchanges her for him.

  • Yes, for that ad to be more effective, she really needed to leave out the part where everyone can answer, ummm, I want Obama picking up the phone.

    I have one big question though: Why is that mother wearing those clothes at 3 am? Does she have a late-shift VP job? Does she go to bed fully dressed? Is she supposed to be young Hillary in from a night working late at the law firm? Usually when I check on my kids at night, I don’t look like I’m at work while I’m doing it.

  • I wouldn’t count out the fear factor too easily. We don live in world where 20 religious nuts can destroy two skyscrapers and 3000 lives.

  • And while watching I thought the answer would be John McCain. Though CB makes a point that it was way too tame by Republican standards these days.

    I don’t think this will score too many points for Hillary. They could have spent their money on better ads than this.

  • Oh yeah. And it was three skyscrapers, not two. Don’t forget that the 47-story steel-framed skyscraper, World Trade Center 7, collapsed at 5:20 PM ET, 9/11/2001, although it was not struck by an aircraft.

  • Catherine made a good point. McCain can take Hillary’s experience talk and throw it back in her face during the general.

    How’s would she deflect the experience argument in the general when it’s been the very foundation of her primary campaign? In fact, she can’t. She’ll try, but once again, she’ll come across as somebody will say whatever needs to be said at the time…even if she knows she might have to take the opposite view later. (e.g. Iraq, MI/FL, tax returns, experience, …)

    The experience argument is another example of positions that Hillary takes that appears it might work…for the moment. The perception of her lack of authenticity on the issues is based on facts.

  • It seems a little disengenuous to suggest that because Obama is not named in the ad, it’s not that controversial. Who in the world do you think it’s referring to?

  • Oh man, that ad is so ripe for parody. Get an actress made up to look like Hillary, and show the phone ringing with her and Bill in bed. Hillary groggily says, “You answer it!” and puts her pillow over her head. Or have an answering machine come on after the fourth ring with some kind of goofy response. The possibilities are endless. I hope to see some youtubers having fun with this one soon.

  • I think this is very, very risky for Clinton. How many people, who have seen the two candidates in the many televised debates, would unequivocably answer, as I did, Barack Obama? Confident, unflappable, smart, clear headed…..yeah…I want Barack answering the phone.

  • The ad made me feel kind of urpy. And then I decided it was time to go give another $10 to Obama.

    I’m going to say this over and over and over again: experience is meaningless without good judgment.

  • “who already knows the world’s leaders”

    yeah except funny how they keep changing! Like Medvev-“whatever” as she eloquently named in her debate, and a new Castro (I’m just gonna keep doing what we’ve been doing for 50 years while the rest of the world warms up to them and we the US become in danger of being irrelevant) as well as new leaders in Pakistan etc. The times have changed and conventional warfare is SO last century.

  • The way I figure, my chance of being screwed by govenment official is far, far greater than being an innocent target of terrorism. What’s my fear today? How am I going to afford the gas I need next month? Christ just buying milk may break the bank. And where am I going to live when the bank boots me out of the home I can no longer afford? How the hell am I going to afford basic admission fees for my son’s college let alone the ludicrous book costs? Is my retirement savings really saved? And why the hell is Capital One allowed to both charge me huge late fees and jack the APR up to 28%? Finally, what if I get sick? I pay dearly for health insurance, but if I’m sick my bills won’t be paid and I’ll still go broke.

    Just a small sampling of what keeps me and many other average Americans awake at night. Believe me, I’m worried but there’s not one minute of any day I spend gnashing my teeth about Osama bin Laden unless of course I’m reminded of all that by some Hillary-funded, Bushesque, Hollywood fear-fest

    Thank you Barack, I’ve craved that inspiration for many many moons. Your dignified approach to the Presidency is like no other in recent history. Keep your head high and never ever stoop.

  • I’ve long suspected that ROTFLMLiberalAO was secretly a Republican plant. But now, after my long patient wait, his post number 35 is his telling slip-up, the proof of my theory:

    The Democrat party has to be very selective about what “new liberal giveaways” they put in their platform.

    The Democrat party. Everyone knows that only Republicans use that term. That so explains your take on Hillary.

    J’accuse!

    🙂

  • For me, the issue here is that it SOUNDS like a controversial attack ad, but it really wasn’t. Even worse, it was fairly cheesy and reminds me again that Hillary’s campaign is still stuck in a 90’s mentality. Of course, as Ezra Klein pointed out, Mondale had a very similar ad and says the same guy created it.

    But the main point is that Hillary is again going out of her way to act like she’s aggressively going after her opponent, but without a real attack message at all. So she gets all the downside for going negative, without any of the upside. And that’s just dumb. It’s supposed to be the other way around.

  • Ad looks fine to me. No suprise that the Hillary haters come out on the board and rail against her for being negative, oblivious to the irony caused by the tone of their own posts.

  • The Democrat party. Everyone knows that only Republicans use that term. That so explains your take on Hillary. -BSA

    I dunno. From the comments of the post earlier, seems like a lot of otherwise smart people are perfectly comfortable co-opting the offensive misnomer, unfortunately.

  • Who do you want answering the phone?

    Whoever can wake up and get clear-headed faster and it’s gotta be Obama, in my book. I’m still a couple of years younger than Hillary but, when I wake up, I’m all groggy and it takes me a while for my brain to catch up. And that “while” is much longer now than it had been 15 years ago. So, my guess is, that she’d be up to speed faster than McCain, but not faster than Obama.

  • Blog Survellience (sic) Act:

    Why do you think I put “new liberal giveaways” in quotes?
    I understand where the argument will be in Oct. and Nov.

    Read my whole post. The idea behind every word is that only one thing matters: Positioning yourself now to win in Nov.

    Why do you think the Clintons waited until this week to promise to feed every child in America fresh vegetables? They could have come out with that weeks and weeks ago.
    Why didn’t they?
    Why didn’t they?
    Why didn’t they?
    Because they know they winning the election in Nov. is complicated by such positions.

    Regarding the bit about being a republican plant….
    I don’t have to show an oath of obedience to any party or group of like-minded individuals. People that need bright labels, like forehead tattoos, aren’t worth spitting on.

    Regarding “democrat party” as distinguished from “democratic party”:
    I’ve been through that silliness before.

    See posts on this thread of 2/9/08:

    My original:
    http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/14529.html#comment-378457

    Phobes doing the “democrat party” thing:
    http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/14529.html#comment-378469

    My response:
    http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/14529.html#comment-378492

    I am getting better at remembering “democratic party” as distinguished from “democrat.”
    But every now and then I still make the error.

    Now prick…
    You need to learn how to spell surveillance…

  • Anonymous @ #5 gets my vote for best (and most cutting) analysis. It’s true; it does suggest that Hillary would never sleep, but would ride the insomnia train night after night in her power suit, waiting for that call that would say America was not safe. I’d go a step further, and offer that it implies Hillary would solve such problems herself ( “no, don’t bother waking the Secretary of Defense, he’s at home sleeping, like his children”). If that suggestion wasn’t floated, then it would be clear that it’s not critical for the president to know all the world leaders (Bush is a sterling example of this, he doesn’t even know quite a few American leaders) or to start barking personal “Lock and Load” orders to the military. Departmental and Section Heads do that – all the president needs do is make a decision and say, “This is what I want. Any problems making it happen, let me know”.

    Barack Obama could do that as well as anyone. So could Mitt Romney, truth be told. Not Mike Huckabee, though – he’d want to initiate a shock and awe campaign that would see the skies raining toads on the enemy, or something biblical like that, and there’s no department head for such things in the U.S. government.

  • Mark – I guess you didn’t read the “Issues” section of Huck’s website, which explained that he’d establish a Department of Locusts as his first order of business. It’d replace the Department of Education, as they’d basically be serving the same purpose. You might be surprised at how educational a plague of locusts can really be.

    He also proposed creating a Department of Stoning, which would explain how he won the deadhead demographic.

  • I’m so scared that i’m ready to amend the Constitution in order for G.W. Bush to keep us safe for another four years…

  • I would like to see some alternative endings:

    No, I’m not interested in changing phone companies!

    No Monica, Bill can’t come to the phone right now.

    Sorry, you must have a wrong number, this isn’t the White House.

    and my personal favorite ending:

    President Obama, Call on Line 1.

  • Fear Mongering Anyone?

    Did somebody from the Bush politcal team dream up the Red Phone ad?

    “One of Clinton’s laws of politics is, if one candidate is trying to scare you, and the other one is trying to make you 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 October 25, 2004

    Personally I’m going to follow Bill’s advice!

    Obama 08

  • New Saturday Night Live Skit for the 3 am Call

    It’s 3 am in the morning your kids are sleep the phone is ringing at the White House, Hillary wakes up and Bill is not in bed. She runs to the Oval Office to answer the phone and Bill is in there rushing to pull up his pants. He hands Hillary the phone but she looks under the desk and it’s Monica. The CIA is trying to warn her of a nuclear attack from Iran but she is angry and starts beating Bill and Monica with the receiver. You can only imagine what happens next…..

  • Hillary, of course (should answer the phone).

    obama is an empty suit.

    he went to Africa…came back arrogant as ever with the big head….now thinks he can run the country and “change the world”‘ . What an idiot he is and many of his followers.

    He could not answer “yes” or “no” for over 125 times in the IL senate, instead answered
    “present”. How does anyone think he will do better? he is an illusion and …yes….has many of you “hood-winked”…. and I am black.

  • Clinton campaign advertisement.
    “” It’s 3:00 AM in the White House phone rings – –
    Monica Lewinski calling for Bill at 3:00 AM to have a phone sex.
    White House red phone ringing at 3:00 AM looking for Bill to have a midnight phone sex.
    Hillary, it was Monica Lewinski calling at 3:00 AM.
    It’s 3:00 AM White House phone rings, Monica calling Bill for phone sex.
    VOTE
    ANYONE, BUT HILLARY

  • Comments are closed.