Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
IT'S 3AM. AND MY AD IS STUPID.
It's a bit weird to watch the Clinton campaign trying to follow Walter Mondale's playbook. The repeated invocations of the SNL skit were a clear throwback to Mondale's "Where's the beef?" attacks on Hart. Kill the insurgent through safe invocations of mocking pop culture! But that fell apart pretty quickly. So onto the next play. Here's Mondale's famous "Red Phone" ad:
And here's Clinton's new ad, which was done by the same guy:
Frankly, the ad struck me as pretty hokey. The continual invocation of "your children" at "3 am," the weird oscillation between talk of family and talk of terror -- the whole thing reads like Rudy Giuliani getting endorsed by the Children's Defense Fund. Worse, it actually seems like a more effective argument for McCain then Clinton.
COMMENTS (15)
I just want to say that I made my walter mondale comparison in the earlier thread before I saw this post.
Posted by: Tyro | February 29, 2008 12:19 PM
Last weekend Hillary was all over the TV calling Obama "shameful". Take a look in the mirror now, Senator Clinton. The one who is shamefully using GOP tactics is you.
Posted by: Ron | February 29, 2008 12:27 PM
Can I now cancel my monthly alarm monitoring contract with ADT and just have the alarm contact the White House, where Hillary will be up all night to send the police by to check on us?
She's really going to alienate the alarm monitoring industry with this approach.
Posted by: El Cid | February 29, 2008 12:34 PM
I'm with Steve Benen: the problem with this ad is it's not negative enough. "Red Phone" was much more explicit that Mondale is the one you want to go with.
In general I think a lot of Clinton's ads have not been explicit enough in the argument that Obama's inexperience makes him unfit to lead, or unwilling to fight for universal health care. These guys don't seem to know how to punch hard, which makes me think that it's not the staff, but Bill Clinton himself that made sure he was sufficiently antagonistic to take on the right.
Posted by: Nicholas Beaudrot | February 29, 2008 12:45 PM
"These guys don't seem to know how to punch hard..."
Are you kidding? He took the lapel pin non-issue and turned it around beautifully, calling the GOP out for its faux-patriotism by highlighting its thirst for more war and refusal to ensure proper armor for the troops. What other Democratic politician has done this? I'm proud to have a candidate that rejects this ridiculous fear mongering.
Posted by: south side | February 29, 2008 1:10 PM
It's a page out of the Republican fearmongering playbook.
"ZOMG my children are in danger!" pushes parental hot buttons in a big way.
Posted by: lux | February 29, 2008 1:36 PM
SNL has been in bed with the Clintons for years now. It was a smart move on their part to flatter SNL creators when they had the resources of the White House to do it. One of the first things that happened in the media after the emergence of the name Linda Tripp was the relentless ridicule of her appearance on SNL. That show is now past its heyday, with birdbrains like Tina Fey starring. One of the lamest moments of the last debate ocurred when Mrs. Clinton cited SNL to back up her point. She seems unclear that it is a tv show.
Posted by: Anonymous | February 29, 2008 1:38 PM
south side: sorry for my antecedents ... I think the issue is that Clinton doesn't seem to know how to write ads that punch hard enough.
Even Bill Clinton will admit that the Mediscare ads were less than perfectly honest. But you gotta do what you gotta do.
Posted by: Nicholas Beaudrot | February 29, 2008 1:46 PM
Nevermind answering the phone...I'm freaked out about this narrator filming the sleeping kids! Please dial TO-CATCH-A-PREDATOR now!
Posted by: disdaniel | February 29, 2008 2:01 PM
Is she kidding?
IMO, this vote (incl. mine) would have been about ten times harder to make if HRC hadn't voted for the Iraq resolution. And then gone on w/ Kyl/Lieberman. And then assembled the kind of foreign policy/national sec team that she has currently.
But hey, at the end of the day, I was still willing to give her the benefit of the doubt if she ended up winning the nom. Surely, when it came right down to it, she would condemn the way defense policy in this country is used as a stopgap against real political discourse!
This is the last straw for me. It shows her willingness to push fear in order to win, the most politically divisive and disempowering method of the Bush/Rove era. Insulting and dangerous to any true democracy.
Posted by: Paula | February 29, 2008 2:21 PM
Nicholas: point taken. I see what you were trying to say now. To your point, I think Clinton knows she could hit harder, but she does so at the peril not only of her nomination, but her political career going forward. I don't think hitting the probable nominee from the right would sit well with the party.
Posted by: south side | February 29, 2008 2:33 PM
But what's really important is:
The title of this post is--though, of course, not all that creative--freakin' hilarious.
Posted by: Winston Smith | February 29, 2008 5:24 PM
Read more comments here:
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/002916.php
Posted by: Tahoe Editor | February 29, 2008 5:30 PM
south side
Obama has been hitting from the right for two months. You may have even stumble across one of Ezra's posts about this. It has helped him become the probable nominee. The "party" doesn't have much of a problem with it. Put down the pom-poms before you type.
Posted by: of Greenwich? | February 29, 2008 7:20 PM
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
Posted by: mike | March 1, 2008 2:26 AM