home

Hillary on Daily Show Monday, Releases Tough New Ad

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 04:51:51 PM EST
Tags: Hillary Clinton, Jon Stewart, Daily Show (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit
Hillary Clinton will be on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart Monday, March 3, at 11PM ET. Here's the press release.

And check out her new ad on national security that began airing in Texas today. Big Tent Democrat wrote it up earlier but comments came in so fast, the thread had to close early. Here's a place to continue the discussion.

The ad says:

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 3am and your children are safe and asleep. Who do you want answering the phone?

< Rockefeller Endorses Obama: Now About Telecom Immunity | Delegate Narratives >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Hillary on Daily Show Monday, Releases Tough New Ad | 183 comments (183 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    NO!!! (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Kathy on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 04:54:28 PM EST
    See subject line.

    I can't believe it!

    God, she is not afraid of anybody, is she?  I thought Tavis Smiley was brave.

    Man, I love this lady.

    I agree, she is fearless (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by stillife on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:24:11 PM EST
    A friend just e-mailed me about this, after I had e-mailed her complaining about the bias on TDS.  I had just finished watching Wednesday's show which featured Jon mocking Hillary for complaining about media bias, with not a word about the inane questions lobbed at Obama.  I said I was through watching TDS, but I'll have to tune in for this!

    [ Parent ]
    I hope she (none / 0) (#32)
    by BrandingIron on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:28:10 PM EST
    verbally spanks the cr@p out of him.  I can't watch TDS anymore with its bias, but I'll sure tune into this one.

    [ Parent ]
    Neither can I (none / 0) (#35)
    by stillife on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:31:11 PM EST
    My daughter, who is not quite as partisan as I am, refuses to watch TDS with me anymore because I keep interrupting with expletives.  ;)

    And yes, I hope she gives him h***.

    [ Parent ]

    Press Release (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by KevinMc on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 04:55:45 PM EST
    Press release says Monday March 03, 2008.

    Thanks, the email I got was wrong (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:04:47 PM EST
    I've fixed it now in the title and the post itself. You guys are quick!

    [ Parent ]
    May we anticipate Jeralyn (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:21:28 PM EST
    and BTD live-blogging The Daily Show?

    [ Parent ]
    Might be a good excuse (none / 0) (#30)
    by Practically Lactating on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:24:12 PM EST
    to get that new server warmed up and "vetted."

    [ Parent ]
    With her sense of humor this should be great..... (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by athyrio on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 04:56:49 PM EST
    Knowing her, she will give as good as she gets....

    It's not THAT easy.... (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by oldpro on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:04:08 PM EST
    depends on whether or not he wants to make trouble for her.  Remember the inteview with Tweety re his new book?  He's an on-camera pro, but was blindsided and crushed by the onslaught.

    Hope Hillary gets a rehearsal over the weekend with some wacky staffer or friend...maybe Carville...another fast talker.

    [ Parent ]

    omigod (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Kathy on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:14:42 PM EST
    that Tweety interview was freakin' hilarious!  He kept screeching about how "this is the worst interview I've ever had!" and all I could think was, "Best. Interview. Ever."   Remember when Rather thumped Stewart over it the next night, though?  You don't attack your own, I guess.  Right up there with Barbara Walters taking up for Shuster.

    Have you seen HRC on Letterman?  She's got some funny stuff, and she really knows how to let folks know she's in on the joke.

    I was so disappointed when Stewart waxed nostalgic about his "dream" of Obama and McCain conducting a civilized and gentlemanly campaign that would be a pabulum for our nation.  Apparently, just recently, Stewart made a joke on Larry King about how "Obama cured my leprosy," so maybe he's regurgitated a bit of the kool-aid.  I hope he redeems himself.

    [ Parent ]

    nope (none / 0) (#105)
    by Nasarius on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 06:53:19 PM EST
    He reiterated his love for Obama/McCain to Madeleine Albright a couple days ago. Unfortunately, she didn't use the opportunity to take a swing at McCain, other than noting that she was a Democrat and would of course support the nominee. Somebody needs to, before TDS viewers get the idea that McCain is a decent person.

    And if you've seen one of his standup gigs, Jon really does buy into High Broder/Obama-ism.

    [ Parent ]

    That Ad is terrible (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by blogtopus on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:01:58 PM EST
    I'm appalled and offended. John McCain would NEVER run an ad like that. [/snicker]

    Can't wait to see her on Daily Show, for better or worse. Has Obama shown up on the Daily Show yet, or is he waiting for the GE to do that?

    Oh I'm sure he'll be on next. (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:04:17 PM EST
    "I agree with Hillary on that."

    [ Parent ]
    "I agree with Hillary, (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by Practically Lactating on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:32:24 PM EST
    and I would be happy to debate that, but what I would also like to point out is that I would answer that phone with an emphatic and dazzlingly hopeful 'Hello?'. I believe I have a unique ability to reach across that phone line, whether it be cellular, VOIP, or a traditional land line, and unite with the caller in a bipartisan fashion."

    [ Parent ]
    yea he was on... (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by americanincanada on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:05:24 PM EST
    Jon has had a bit of koolaide. It was a vomit inducing show when Obama was on. Mostly stump speech.

    But Jon is always great with Bill and I can't wait to see Hillary. She has a great sense of humor, it should be good.

    [ Parent ]

    Hillary expands on the 3am Ad (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by RalphB on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:08:56 PM EST
    in an appearance to day in Waco, TX

    video

    The guys behind don't seem to be frightened by the ad.

    Obama's Abdication: What Judgment? (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by Athena on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:15:11 PM EST
    Where is Obama's judgment when he blows off his subcomittee chairmanship and ignores issues under its jurisdiction, i.e., NATO in Afghanistan, Kosovo, etc.?

    He doesn't respond to crisis when it's right under his jurisdiction NOW.


    [ Parent ]

    if i lived in one of the buildings (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by hellothere on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:21:31 PM EST
    in chicago that had no heat in obama's district that obama's supporter owned, i wouldn't be too sure obama would be there for me. in fact, i am not too sure obama is there for me now.

    [ Parent ]
    "Answer the Phone" (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Athena on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:22:56 PM EST
    If I was Hillary, I'd run an ad that says "Answer the Phone" and call Obama to task for abandoning his subcommittee work (which deals with national security issues) to run for President.

    [ Parent ]
    Athena, send that idea to Clinton's website (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 08:00:32 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Yes, I Will (3.00 / 2) (#144)
    by Athena on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:07:04 PM EST
    I sent it to the blog; also posted it on the Daily Frat:
    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/29/212456/901/185/466628

    I can really see how infested DK is now - there was a panicked attempt to annihilate the diary I wrote on this just now.  The site is completely degenerate.

    [ Parent ]

    Athena, you've cheered me up (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:18:43 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Hostile Territory (none / 0) (#151)
    by Athena on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:32:42 PM EST
    Yes, I just went to war over at DK - and have the scars to show for it.  But I'm still standing.

    [ Parent ]
    Athena, another ad riff idea (none / 0) (#165)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:03:52 PM EST
    What about a version of that same Clinton ad with an ending where Obama picks up the phone.

    The script writes itself. Oh please, can't some YouTuber do it for us.

    Obama picks up the phone and says: "bone headed judgment...hope...change...yes we can...just words".

    [ Parent ]

    A fellow traveller says hi!! (none / 0) (#181)
    by ghost2 on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:53:43 AM EST
    you are great.  Those guys are idiots, most of the front pagers are included in that description (exceptions: plutonium page, brownsox, and maybe one more that I have forgotten).


    [ Parent ]
    Back at You (none / 0) (#187)
    by Athena on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 01:24:25 PM EST
    Hey to you too.  Glad to find other refugees over here.

    [ Parent ]
    Ooo, that's be a good one. (none / 0) (#34)
    by BrandingIron on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:30:45 PM EST

    Actually, anyone can make that ad.  Just point a camera towards an unoccupied desk with his name and title on it and have the phone ring...and ring....and ring....

    [ Parent ]
    BrandingIron too, send your idea to Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 08:12:16 PM EST
    I teach Visual Communications, not a point that might be of much consequence. But, your ideas have  great potential, vis a vis building on the success of the current ad - funny as well - which can be even more effective than fear.

    [ Parent ]
    Crisis (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by 0 politico on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 08:05:05 PM EST
    But, he was job searching!

    Surely, if he were on Oprah's staff, she would applaud his initiative.

    Then, she would fire him.

    [ Parent ]

    Love the line ... (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:24:11 PM EST
    "I don't think people in Texas scare all that easily"

    Hope that gets played on local news in Texas.

    [ Parent ]

    I say (none / 0) (#133)
    by tek on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 08:25:08 PM EST
    if Obama can lie to the American people, Hillary can scare them!

    [ Parent ]
    They also don't (none / 0) (#170)
    by Foxx on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:55:54 PM EST
    seem real happy to be there.

    [ Parent ]
    I like Obama (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Lil on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:11:01 PM EST
    I really do, but you know she's right; I'd rather have her answering the phone when something happens in the world. The blogosphere is all crazy about this ad, but I actually think it's good.  Nothing more powerful than the image of moms and dads wanting to protect their kids. I trust she more prepared, but I really do like Obama...

    Are you one of those (none / 0) (#37)
    by BrandingIron on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:32:17 PM EST
    "I think she's more prepared for the job, but I'm still voting for Obama!" people?

    [ Parent ]
    no (none / 0) (#61)
    by Lil on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:55:25 PM EST
    Just recognizing Obama's likability.

    [ Parent ]
    Lil, what qualities of Obama's do (none / 0) (#131)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 08:18:36 PM EST
    you find most likable? I mean that to be conversational not confrontational. I would appreciate hearing about it from the perspective of a Clinton supporter.

    [ Parent ]
    Hello Foxhole (none / 0) (#149)
    by Lil on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:29:08 PM EST
    I think he's smart, smooth, doesn't rattle easily.  He can take a punch. He fights back without coming off obnoxious.  He fights back period, something Kerry and Gore didn't do so well. He's very cool.  He's a Democrat and I agree with most of what he says and his Dem values and I think he'd represents Democrats well. And his speeches are inspiring.

    I do worry that he has managed to hide his slick political side and is probably a lot more cut throat than his affable appearance. I also think he's a little young and doesn't know what he doesn't know yet (I'm 48 myself)> I think if he gets the nomination the Republicans are going to cut him up, so I worry about electability. I also worry that he will capitulate to the right. His fondness for reaching out to Republicans scares me, as my belief is that usually bipartisanship means doing what the Republicans want.

    I am completely dismayed by Dems so easily attacking the guy or gal they don't want to see win. I think that gives way to much fodder to the right wing when this is settled.  Plus a lot of people are going to have to eat crow and get behind their second choice if we want a win in Nov. which is the most important thing to me.

    Thanks for being interested in my opinion. What's yours?

    [ Parent ]

    So that she can poll the Republicans? (none / 0) (#155)
    by sphealey on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:41:51 PM EST
    > I really do, but you know she's right;
    > I'd rather have her answering the phone
    > when something happens in the world.

    So that she can poll Republicans about what to do before making a "decision"?  Sort of what she did with the Iraq vote? It was crystal clear to me (and I said so in a letter to my Senators at the time) that there was no justification for an unprovoked attack on Iraq.  Senator Clinton took counsel not only of her own fears but of Republican (that is, the party of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney) fears and voted for war.  That was good judgment?  Do tell.

    sPh

    [ Parent ]

    Did you support Kerry? (none / 0) (#169)
    by Lil on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:55:43 PM EST
    As a non supporter of the war, I think this idea that voting for authorization for the war was the same as saying do it is nonsense. I could be wrong, but I don't think lots of folks who voted expected this administration could be so evil...and stupid at the same time.  And I'd take her or Obama in that order anyday over anyone the right would put up.  I'm a partisan Dem. And I'm proud of it.  I used to think we should try to all get along until I realized that basically means do what the Republicans want.  Also, It has not been clear to me that Obama has done much different in terms of decision making, since he didn't have a chance to vote. I think she is more knowlegable and will give her some credit for a the learning curve, which he hasn't had the opportunity to achieve yet. Obama doesn't know what he doesn't know. Or something like that...it's getting late.

    [ Parent ]
    Judgement (none / 0) (#182)
    by sphealey on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 06:28:53 AM EST
    > but I don't think lots of folks who voted
    > expected this administration could be so evil...

    Except that there were people who were saying exactly that, and also pointing to the heavy PNAC influence in the Bush Administration and the general incompetence already on display by that time.  As Duncan Black has documented those people were not only marginalized and ignored but ridiculed and accused of treason.  Turns out that they were right - and that Senator Clinton listened to the wrong people.  In fact Senator Clinton took counsel of the fears of the Radical Right and the PNACers, which to me shows very bad judgment.

    sPh

    [ Parent ]

    Senator Obama's campaign has their own (5.00 / 0) (#20)
    by RiderOnTheStorm on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:15:13 PM EST
    It's a response to this, and it's already running in Texas.

    Personally, I disapprove of both: they're too close to the fear-mongering that I'd prefer to see remain the exclusive province of the GOP. (In part because I find it exasperatingly silly, and in part because I think we can run against it.)

    But it's worth noting that the speed of the response indicates something: the people running that campaign have clearly learned from prior ones, such as Kerry 2004, and are more than ready for the kind of attacks they may face during the general election campaign.  It will not be easy for the GOP to swiftboat this time around. When this becomes a combined effort, the nominee would be wise to take advantage of that expertise.

    It helps to have a money advantage... (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:17:16 PM EST
    ..as the Dems do this year.

    [ Parent ]
    The DEFINITION of AWOL (none / 0) (#31)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:25:45 PM EST
    ******************
    For the record, in reference to my post on the prior thread about the new Clinton ad...

    AWOL means: Absent from one's post but without intent to desert.
    (It's an acronym for absent without leave.)

    Maybe Obscure and Squeaky would like to apologize to Mr. Obama for all the terrible assumptions they made about him when I used this word to describe Mr. Obama's abdication of various responsibilities.

    Now, I am going AWOL for awhile: which doesn't mean that I'm going to be "lazy" or "shiftless" as Squeaky and Obscure previously suggested in relation to Mr. Obama.


    [ Parent ]

    In response: (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:32:53 PM EST
    * * * * * *

    [ Parent ]
    Aha! AWOL means absent without leave ... (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by cymro on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:46:46 PM EST
    ... who knew! Thanks for explaining that.

    [ Parent ]
    actually it means (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by Tano on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 08:40:47 PM EST
    Absent Without Official Leave

    [ Parent ]
    I think you mean (none / 0) (#150)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:29:18 PM EST
    Absent without (official) leave. Meaning that, the word "official" is presumed to be implicit.

    That's all.

    [ Parent ]

    no that is not what I mean (none / 0) (#153)
    by Tano on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:38:48 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Tano, You're all wrong, but that's alright (none / 0) (#167)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:14:23 PM EST
    alright

    [ Parent ]
    Cymro, re. AWOL (none / 0) (#113)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 07:30:41 PM EST
    It's a long story that carried over from a prior thread today where a couple of people were insisting that a reference to Obama being "AWOL" was somehow racist and equivalent to calling him:
    "a deserter...unpatriotic..cowardly..lazy... shiftless" etc.

    Ergo, the apparent need to to point out the actual definition of AWOL: absent from one's post without intent to desert.

    I included the more self-evident definition (absent without leave) to pre-empt any ensuing snark.

     

    [ Parent ]

    Apologize? (none / 0) (#36)
    by squeaky on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:31:24 PM EST
    You are the one who said that Obama would not answer the phone at 3AM in response to a national emergency. Because he would be AWOL. That is absurd.

    [ Parent ]
    Not absurd given his record (none / 0) (#45)
    by Practically Lactating on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:39:33 PM EST
    To suggest that Obama would not adequately "answer the call" is not absurd and I am pretty sure FHA enumerated several instances from his record that make such a scenario seem plausible.

    [ Parent ]
    Utter and Total BS (none / 0) (#51)
    by squeaky on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:45:53 PM EST
    Hillary and Obama's record is almost identical. FHA just repeated HRC talking points.

    And to equate voting present to a bill that had no chance of ever becoming law to being AWOL during a national emergency is beyond silly.

    [ Parent ]

    Can you ask FoxholeAtheist to explain ... (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by cymro on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:52:23 PM EST
    ... what BS means?

    [ Parent ]
    Lord help us - never thought I'd say that (none / 0) (#120)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 07:48:00 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    It's a metaphor. (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Practically Lactating on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:55:38 PM EST
    No one said he'd be out playing golf.  Sheesh.

    For someone that has avoided politically uncomfortable decisions in the piddly state Senate or has prioritized his presidential campaign above his service with the Foreign Relations Committee (among other examples), it is entirely conceivable that he will not be adequately equipped when the going gets really tough.

    [ Parent ]

    Sarcasm alert! Actually, ... (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by cymro on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 06:16:32 PM EST
    ... I was not questioning Squeaky's comment. I was giving FoxholeAtheist -- who thought we needed to be told the definition of AWOL -- another opportunity to educate us.

    [ Parent ]
    just so you know the backstory... (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by tree on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 06:30:34 PM EST
    on "AWOL-gate".

    FHA said that he(she?) worried that Obama might be AWOL for that 3am call(re the ad). A poster named "obscure" claimed, and Squeaky echoed the claim, that FHA had implied that Obama was "lazy and shiftless". A few of us called them for shameless race-baiting. I don't think either one of them(O or S) quite know how to gracefully admit they were wrong.

     That's why FHA is giving a definition of AWOL.

    [ Parent ]

    Thanks Tree - I intend no snark/condescension (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 07:45:05 PM EST
     

    [ Parent ]
    Comment was for Squeaky (none / 0) (#92)
    by Practically Lactating on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 06:33:28 PM EST
    I got the sarcasm.

    My comment was not for you.  It was for squeaky, who seems to think that people are claiming Obama would literally be AWOL.

    [ Parent ]

    Cymro I wasn't underestimating you (none / 0) (#115)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 07:33:36 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    NIce Try (none / 0) (#82)
    by squeaky on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 06:10:46 PM EST
    A metaphor?  Backpeddling out of the kitchen, are you?

    CIC AWOL during a national emergency. Some metaphor.


    [ Parent ]

    Do you honestly believe (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Practically Lactating on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 06:29:03 PM EST
    that anyone here believes we might not be able to find Obama during a national emergency?  "Where's Obama?  I don't know."  I am so sure.  No one believes that, and now you are being absurd by feigning ignorance of the argument being made.  

    The argument is that given Obama's record of voting present, of not fulfilling responsibilities on the Foreign Relations Committee, not voting on Kyl-Lieberman, nurturing a years long relationship with a known political fixer, etc., his ability to act in a difficult situation is in question.

    [ Parent ]

    Just A Joke (none / 0) (#99)
    by squeaky on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 06:41:35 PM EST
    Hahahaha. You all are like cultists, not much different from Obamamaniacs.

    [ Parent ]
    No kidding (none / 0) (#143)
    by obscure on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 08:53:04 PM EST
    Would I like to apologize? No, I don't think so. I understand what AWOL means, and I think that to use it the way you did was insulting. If I remember correctly, AWOL isn't a term that is used lightly, it's a serious offense.

    Your comment was offensive because you're saying that Obama is a bad person who would take his oath of office lightly. That's very different from arguing your opinion of his abilities to handle difficult situations.

    As for the race-baiting charge, your original message didn't explain why you thought he'd be AWOL, and it is not unreasonable to see it as your calling him lazy or shiftless. Now since you've clarified your position, I apologize for my interpretation of your comment.

    [ Parent ]

    A few reasons why the ad is dumb (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by fuzzyone on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:43:54 PM EST
    First, it makes me think of what Hillary did when she had to make a big decision on national security, she voted for the war in Iraq.

    Second, it leads to a question they apparently cant' answer:

    "What foreign policy moment would you point to in Hillary's career where she's been tested by crisis?" he said.

    Silence on the call. You could've knit a sweater in the time it took the usually verbose team of Mark Penn, Howard Wolfson and Lee Feinstein, Clinton's national security director, to find a cogent answer. And what they came up with was weak -- that she's been endorsed by many high ranking members of the uniformed military.

    From hotline (which has the audio)

    Third, she just finished accusing Obama of Rovian tactics and does something that looks just like a Rove ad. No substance, just try to make people afraid.  I seriously doubt this is going to work on democrats.  I assume everyone has seen enough of this from Bush to see right through it.

    It clearly pleases those who already like her but who else does it get her.

    (The idea that it is offensive strikes me as silly, its just not very good, but she is clearly desperate.)

    People need to stop parroting (4.33 / 3) (#76)
    by mg7505 on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 06:07:25 PM EST
    the Obama line about 'judgment' and 'the decision she made about Iraq.' That strikes me as code word for 'Barack is smarter than Hillary,' and potentially a sexist undertone to the tune of 'women's judgment periodically fails, men are more rational' etc etc. It's sickening to hear Obama talk about 'judgment' all the time, when he and Hillary have voted the same way in the Senate on national security issues.

    Hillary may or may not have been tested on a specific national security crisis; few Senators have, besides McCain. But she has traveled far more widely and, as the ad says, actually knows world leaders. If you think national security threats are as simple as casting a vote, think again; more often than not they're about diplomacy with people whom you need to know really well. The last thing we need is someone with practically no foreign policy or diplomacy credentials to back up his rhetoric. Moreover, military endorsements do matter because they are probably more qualified than us civilians to judge who's better able to handle a national security crisis.

    Clinton has shown she's a hard worker; she even put a bill on the floor last year while on the campaign trail, during the same time that Obama couldn't hold a single meeting of the committee he decided to chair. If someone's going to be up at 3 am, it's Hillary Clinton.

    If you really want someone with the experience and testedness (not to mention testosterone) on foreign policy, vote McCain. Otherwise stick with Hillary; at least she's been on the Foreign Relations Council and showed up, for what that's worth.

    [ Parent ]

    What makes me giggle... (5.00 / 3) (#86)
    by reynwrap582 on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 06:15:50 PM EST
    Is that Obama has accepted the endorsement of Senator Kerry and Senator Dodd, as well as others I'm sure, who voted the same way as Hillary on the Iraq War Resolution.  Shouldn't he be questioning the judgment of those who have endorsed him and voted for the war?  I mean, if a vote for the war is such a failure in judgment, then I should assume Kerry and Dodd have terrible judgment and use that as a reason to NOT vote for Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    Not to mention, Daschle. (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by oldpro on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 07:18:16 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    And people complain about Obama supporters (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by fuzzyone on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 07:05:31 PM EST
    playing the race card.  Please give me a break.  She was for the war, he was against it.  Its one of the few things they have ever disagreed about.  She made a decision on national security.  It was a disaster.

    Unlike some of the rabid partisans on both sides I think either would make a good president. But her ad invited this response.  Just another example of why she is losing. Her terrible campaign is reason enough to hope she loses.  People who worry about how Obama would fear in the GE baffle me given the job Clinton has done.  This is her first real contest (she had no real challenges in her Senate races) and she is coming up short.

    The idea that you can't question her judgment in voting for the war without being sexist is just absurd.

    [ Parent ]

    Hillary supporter (none / 0) (#116)
    by Practically Lactating on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 07:44:47 PM EST
    and I agree.  Nothing sexist here and I don't like seeing this charge bandied about so easily.

    [ Parent ]
    Well, there is also that thing called judgement (none / 0) (#159)
    by sphealey on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:46:06 PM EST
    > If you think national security threats
    >  are as simple as casting a vote, think again;

    Well, there is also that little thing called "judgment" which involves, among other things, being able to estimate which votes might have a direct bearing on how long the United States survives as a nation (it being my opinion that the Iraq fiasco has done permanent and possibly fatal damage to the US as a nation) and also whether or not to trust the word of an administration that is staffed from top to bottom with PNACers.

    sPh

    [ Parent ]

    I Love That Ad (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by xjt on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:49:56 PM EST
    That's my favorite ad of hers so far. I don't understand why he's so upset about it, except that it's very effective. I mean, it's a campaign. Is she allowed to promote her strengths? Should she be required to clear every ad with the Obama campaign to see if they approve of it?

    This is a GREAT ad.

    Uhh (none / 0) (#154)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:40:33 PM EST
    I don't know who the he is that you are referring to but if it is Obama he is most certainly NOT upset about it.

    Maybe the ad is great but so far I haven't seen anyone, who isn't in the Clinton camp already, say much positive or negative about it.

    [ Parent ]

    Jor I cannot you believe you are still posting (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by athyrio on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 06:00:01 PM EST
    after being told you are banned for the day
    Judgement (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by Paladin on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 06:10:33 PM EST
    It's clear that judgement is the key word the Obama campaign is using to differentiate itself from Clinton. It's repeated over and over again. It's very effective, because she will always have that vote hanging around her neck like an albatross.  

    But be warned.  Just as the Repubs went after Kerry's perceived strength (war hero with medals), they ripped that strength to shreds.  Didn't matter that it was all based on untruths.

    They'll try to make his "Judgement" a weakness.  Rezko anyone?  And that's just a start.

    Judgement (5.00 / 2) (#122)
    by 0 politico on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 07:53:21 PM EST
    No, the ad does not offend me.  It is still a valid concern for many people.

    No, I do not consider myself paranoid, even if i did grow up during the Cold War.

    As to Obama's judgement and readiness to lead, the Republicans will cut him to pieces on this.  As I noted in another thread, they will use his shirking of his responsibility on the sub committee dealing with Europe, NATO and Afghanistan, for over a year, while troops are in the war zone, against him.  He was, "a bit busy"?

    Personally, as a veteran, I will have trouble accepting any national security or foreign relations argument from his campaign after that admission in the last debate.

    This will be a problem for him down the road.  Perhaps not next week.  but, it will catch up to him.

    [ Parent ]

    Wow, at the end of the day (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by Tano on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:13:23 PM EST
    Ya gotta hand it to the Obama camp. Incredibly fast turnaround, and a better ad to boot.

    Its often said that the way you run a campaign may give lots of insight into the way you would run the WH. Its on a much smaller scale of course, but this is effectivly the first executive experience for each of them. He has run the best campaign I have seen in a long time.

    I keep reading this (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by Marvin42 on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:28:05 PM EST
    And my mind always goes back to the same thing that no Obama supporter every responds to:

    This can be said of George W Bush. He ran a lot better campaign than Al Gore. So by your logic he was the better candidate?

    Did you vote for him then in 2004?

    [ Parent ]

    Of course not... (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by fiver5 on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:42:57 PM EST
    George W. Bush was an inexperienced fool who owed every position he had ever held to nepotism.  Sure, family connections gave him a springboard position which enabled him to claim he was qualified and "experienced" enough to be president, but not only did he not deserve the Texas Governorship, he did nothing of substance as governor and only spent his time cementing the connections necessary to run for president.  How could anyone support such a candidate?  I still couldn't.

    Also, aside from using his family connections to amass a formidable war chest and lock up the party's insiders, what about GWB's campaign was so special?  

    [ Parent ]

    Well ok (4.00 / 1) (#158)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:45:03 PM EST
    So George Bush got 8 years of Republican rule in the White House and 6 years of Republican rule in Congress.

    From a partisan standpoint he was an extremely effective politician.

    So if Barack Obama will be able to have that kind of domination yet push a Democratic agenda, I think we might get this country back to where it needs to be.

    [ Parent ]

    GWB sacrificed his party (none / 0) (#168)
    by Practically Lactating on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:38:03 PM EST
    From a partisan standpoint he was an extremely effective politician.

    His party's welfare has been sacrificed by his agenda.  GWB has fractured his party and put it in jeopardy, so it's hard for me to grasp why this is a path Dems should replicate.

    [ Parent ]

    Because (none / 0) (#184)
    by flyerhawk on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 07:22:59 AM EST
    George Bush damaged his party because of bad ideas.  They were very supportive of those bad ideas, except perhaps the Medicare bill.

    Being a good politician is not a bad thing.

    [ Parent ]

    Never said it was (none / 0) (#185)
    by Practically Lactating on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 09:48:27 AM EST
    Unfortunately, there is little evidence that politicians that good campaigners are also good officeholders.  In fact, very few are good at both.  Given Obama's record, there is no reason to believe that Barack Obama is one of those rare politicians well-suited for both roles.

    [ Parent ]
    wash your mouth out (none / 0) (#156)
    by Tano on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:42:20 PM EST
    or your fingers, whatever.

    I think its just that Gore ran a really bad campaign.

    [ Parent ]

    Partly (none / 0) (#163)
    by Marvin42 on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:51:14 PM EST
    But looking back I have to say the Bush camp ran a much better campaign. That really didn't translate into a better candidate.

    Which was my point. I understand you support Sen Obama. He may very well be a better president. But to keep saying he would be because he is running the better campaign is a bit of weak argument imo.

    And that was my point. A good candidate does not a good president make (necessarily).

    [ Parent ]

    Oops! They did it again! (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by The GrandPanjandrum on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:56:59 PM EST
    Clinton may answer the phone but once again proves she hires a lot of inept idiots:
    Responding to the release of HRC's new TX TV ad, which asserts in no subtle terms that only she has the experience to deal with a major world crisis, and, relatedly, to keep your children safe, Slate's John Dickerson asked the obvious question: "What foreign policy moment would you point to in Hillary's career where she's been tested by crisis?" he said. Silence on the call. You could've knit a sweater in the time it took the usually verbose team of Mark Penn, Howard Wolfson and Lee Feinstein, Clinton's national security director, to find a cogent answer. And what they came up with was weak -- that she's been endorsed by many high ranking members of the uniformed military.
    Once again her staff snatches defeat from the jaws of victory. Are you really sure she's ready on day one? Her Presidential campaign isn't ready on day 405. I look forward to Senator Clinton and other senior Democrats working with President Obama on serious foreign policy matters.

    Am I going senile? (none / 0) (#173)
    by Marvin42 on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 11:09:46 PM EST
    Or is this an exact replica of another post?

    [ Parent ]
    unfortunately, it's an exact replica (none / 0) (#179)
    by RalphB on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:14:42 AM EST
    thankfully, it's no more convincing now than the original  :-)

    Have we noticed that Obama's campaign seems to be only about his "campaign".  Pretty empty otherwise.


    [ Parent ]

    Dueling Ads (1.00 / 2) (#89)
    by 1jane on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 06:27:34 PM EST
    Clinton's campaign is throwing everything they've got at the wall to see what will stick. Obama quickly produces a new ad to parry Clinton's ad. Blogs start voting on which candidate has the better ad. Desperate campaigning is simply desperate campaigning. No matter what the Clinton campaign does, Obama's campaign is nimble, quick to respond and takes the high road.

    What's interesting about these dueling ads (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Paladin on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 06:37:33 PM EST
    is that if one were to look at them separately, without any knowledge that Obama's was a response to Hillary's, it would have a completely different meaning.  His ad would  appear to be fear mongering by lots of people.

    Oh, the irony.

    But it's a good response.

    [ Parent ]

    she'll be on Monday (none / 0) (#5)
    by along on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:00:28 PM EST
    via satellite. those kind of appearances generally don't pack much of a punch.

    Very likely right. (none / 0) (#17)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:14:34 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    That;'s disappointing (none / 0) (#160)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:46:31 PM EST
    While I am an Obama guy I would like to see Hillary bring out her best.  A satellite appearance will almost certainly be nothing more than some bland platitudes.  

    [ Parent ]
    I'm not crazy about the ad.... (none / 0) (#15)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:12:15 PM EST
    ..but hey, it's not a mushroom cloud. I actually think that with a few changes this ad would actually work better against McCain.

    Not at all (none / 0) (#16)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:14:15 PM EST
    It was duplicative in pointing out for the third time that she's on Monday not tonight. Feel free to post the rest again. Sorry about that.

    I suspended jor for the day (none / 0) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:18:24 PM EST
    I have no idea why he is commenting. All of his comments should be deleted for the rest of the day.

    [ Parent ]
    Jor didnt BTD ban you earlier for the day??? (none / 0) (#21)
    by athyrio on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:16:09 PM EST


    Who/where is Jor? (none / 0) (#121)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 07:49:25 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    HRC ad. (none / 0) (#26)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:22:50 PM EST
    Text reads like the trailer for a horror movie.  Haven't heard/seen the ad yet though.

    I've answered phone calls at (none / 0) (#33)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:29:44 PM EST
    3 a.m. It's not that big a deal. You just have to wake up. I imagine whoever is in the White House they'll have a pot of coffee going.

    Are you serious or kidding? (none / 0) (#41)
    by Lil on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:35:00 PM EST
    This is a serious question from me; I can't tell.

    [ Parent ]
    I think it's a valid point. (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by fiver5 on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 06:35:20 PM EST
    If the focus of the ad is supposed to be: "Who's more qualified" then the 3:00 a.m. time is irrelevant because anyone can answer a telephone even though it's late.  If, however, fear mongering is the main objective, then setting the scene at 3:00 a.m. (and immediately mentioning "your children" and "safety") is the way to go.  

    [ Parent ]
    I would hope (none / 0) (#162)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:49:05 PM EST
    that by the time the President is in the Sit Room, the National Security guys have been up for a long time and are preparing a full report to give to him or her.  

    It's a kind of silly ad in the sense that President of the United States isn't a 9 to 5 job.  Even our current slacker still probably works 60-70 hour weeks.

    [ Parent ]

    The more I think (none / 0) (#40)
    by Lil on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:33:39 PM EST
    about all this, the more I find myself wanting Hillary to win. I flirted with the idea of jumping on board with Obama as many of my acquaintances have already done. But the more I look the more I think she is the most qualified to be president. Unfortunately, this has become more of a popularity contest of who is the coolest, etc. Looking at the polls and trends I don't see how she survives though.

    Lil (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Kathy on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:37:41 PM EST
    the very fact of her survival is enough for me.  Being president is about being tough and not backing down when the b*stards are after you.  She was able to get Newt Gingrich to work with her after all the impeachment crap.  Actions speak louder than words.

    [ Parent ]
    Survive (none / 0) (#49)
    by Lil on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:44:28 PM EST
    the presdiential campaign, I meant. I agree with actions being louder than words, which is why I think she should be president; I just don't really think she can pull it off at this point, although I hope I'm wrong.

    [ Parent ]
    she can pull it off (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Kathy on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:47:19 PM EST
    if people like you don't give up.  If you think Obama is going to overwhelmingly win, then voting with your mind for Clinton won't matter.  Of course, if lots of women like you do it, then she's got more than a chance--she's got the potential to make history.

    (but, as you might have gathered, I am a firm Clinton partisan!)

    [ Parent ]

    Kathy (none / 0) (#59)
    by Lil on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:52:56 PM EST
    I already voted for on 2/5 in a state she won. The weird thing is I'm more convinced now that I want her to win, while it seems so many others went the other way...what am I seeing that others don't and vice versa. I sent her campaign some money today, but it still feels like hoping against hope (unintentional pun). Sometimes i feel like I come here just to catch a glimpse of hope that she can pull it off, since Talk Left is one of the few places left where it isn't a complete Hillary bash fest.

    [ Parent ]
    you are not alone (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by Kathy on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 06:01:45 PM EST
    We can't give up because Hillary hasn't given up.  I know what you mean about feeling down, though.  I remember what it was like to be a democrat during the early Bush years, when saying you were a dem was almost like saying you were a child molester.  The repubs weren't content to win the election--they had to tear us down, then spit on us, then do a victory dance.  I guess that's why I have such a negative reaction to Obama people-some here, but mostly on the other blogs (which I have stopped reading)-because they aren't content to just have Obama win; they want to grind our faces into the dirt in the process.

    I'm not going to be made to feel ashamed because I support Hillary Clinton for president.  She is more qualified, she is more experienced and I, along with millions of other voters, proudly back her.  Did you see how much money she raised?!  35mm in 14 days!  That's because people out there need her to win, and they are putting their money behind it.

    Don't let anyone else convince you otherwise.

    [ Parent ]

    I salute you (none / 0) (#83)
    by RiderOnTheStorm on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 06:12:23 PM EST
    This is almost exactly how I felt when Nixon beat McGovern.  And I know it's hard to stick with your convictions sometimes under the best of circumstances, let alone difficult ones.  But it's great to see -- it gives me hope for the future.

    (And my response to those who try to label me by using "liberal" as an epithet instead of a compliment is to tell them that no, I'm a radical. ;-)  Keep the faith, brothers and sisters!)

    So I agree with you: you've no reason to be ashamed and every reason to be proud, win, lose or draw.

    [ Parent ]

    Lil, I loved the unintentional pun (none / 0) (#66)
    by RalphB on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 06:00:19 PM EST
    and keep the faith.


    [ Parent ]
    Kathy, Here's still hoping Hillary gets the nod. (none / 0) (#138)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 08:37:28 PM EST
    In the meantime, I find some comfort in Al Gore's ascension to Goracle status after giving up on the White House. He's bigger than the Pope now and something like that is foreseeable for Hillary as well.


    [ Parent ]
    Obama's response ad (none / 0) (#42)
    by MKS on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:35:58 PM EST
    Here is Obama's response ad:

    Points to Obama for responding so quickly.....They have their act together....

    That's his response? (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by