Pick Up the Phone

This seems like a pretty effective and well-made ad to me:

That said, the question becomes who do I want picking up the phone -- the candidate who voted for invading Iraq, or the other one? The candidate willing to take some controversial stands on national security issues or the one who's addicted to the politics of fear as a weapon and timidity as a defense mechanism? Most of all, the ultimate upshot of this sort of "are you experienced?" politics is that John McCain ought to be the next president. But while I'd like to have experienced hands at the levers of power, what I'd really like is a president who has good ideas and the courage to stand up for them.

As someone interested in spearheading the looming nineties alt-rock renaissance, however, I'm pleased to see Matchbox 20 references entering our punditry.

Comments

I disagree. I think the ad isn't negative enough. This makes me think that the driving force behind sufficient negativity in the 1992 and 1996 campaigns was Bill Clinton and/or James Carville.

I hear the kids at school now have '90s parties. What the hell do they listen to?

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | February 29, 2008 2:49 PM

You think this is good? So you loved this kind of ad when the republicans did it in '04, and you'll love it when McCain does it in November?

You're a closest Rovian, no?

Posted by Helter | February 29, 2008 2:51 PM

I saw this commercial already, when Brinks Home Security did it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ku1YOrxXeQ

Posted by El Cid | February 29, 2008 2:53 PM

effective and well-made?!

Are US voters brain-dead or something? Anyone whose vote might actually be swayed by this and doesn't immediately burst out laughing should have his voting rights revoked.

Posted by novakant | February 29, 2008 2:55 PM

I think the full lyrics are relevant:

she says it's cold outside and she hands me my raincoat

she's always woried about things like that
she says it's all gonna end and it might as well be my fault
and she only sleeps when its raining
and she screams and her voice is straining

(chorus)

and she says baby
it's 3am I must be lonely
when she says baby
well I can't help but be scared of it all sometimes
she says the rain's gonna wash away I believe it

she's got a little bit of something, God it's better than nothing
and in her color portrait world she believes that she's got it all
she swears the moon don't hang quite as high as it used to
and she only sleeps when its raining
and she screams, and her voice is straining
(chorus)

she believes that life is made up of all that you're used to
and the clock on the wall has been stuck at 3 for days, and days
she thinks that happiness is the mat that sits on her doorway
but outside it's stopped raining

(chorus)

Posted by southpaw | February 29, 2008 2:57 PM

The only thing for which Matchbox 20 is an alternative is good music.

Posted by Ziller | February 29, 2008 2:57 PM

What do my non-existent sleeping children have to do with anything? Cheap sensationalism, which was fine for "Daisy" but long past its sell-by date, one would hope.

Posted by Matt B | February 29, 2008 2:58 PM

Bill Clinton is against this ad. Or was, before he ruined his legacy supporting his wife's campaign:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGW38Zy4bJo

Posted by TH | February 29, 2008 2:59 PM

24 seconds into it I thought it was a McCain ad.

Imagine my surprise.

Posted by calling all toasters | February 29, 2008 3:00 PM

Is this just a YouTube or is someone wasting money putting on the TeeVee?

Barry already answered this and pretty much made it irrelevant. Everytime people see this, it will remind them how much they like Obama rather than Clinton. If Clinton pays to to play this, then she would do better to just contribute directly to Obama's campaign.

Posted by An Outhouse | February 29, 2008 3:03 PM

"I would encourage you on March 5th to call Sen. Clinton at 3 a.m.," – Richard Danzig, former Navy Secretary

Posted by Dirk | February 29, 2008 3:05 PM

I wanted to Bring this video to your attention. It is self-explanatory about what Bill said before his wife started running. Obama should just run this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGW38Zy4bJo

Posted by Alex | February 29, 2008 3:05 PM

Nooooooo! It's too early for a 90s renaissance. I'm still enjoying the 80s renaissance -- and we just left the 90s, for Chrissake. I'm going to need at least another decade before I want to hear whiny male vocalists and flat guitars again.

Posted by Ted | February 29, 2008 3:07 PM

Is it good judgment to campaign on improving international relations at the same time you threaten to renege on treaties signed with close allies? It's too bad for Dems that you couldn't find someone else who voted against Iraq to run against Obama (someone besides Kucinich, I mean, because that guy isn't the hip friend any of you want to imagine having). That way, Obama wouldn't be getting a pass on pretty much everything else in the primary.

Posted by Fred | February 29, 2008 3:09 PM

I'm glad you picked up on the same thing I did about this ad. I'll go one step further: If she wins, McCain should run this exact ad. Imagine it running and then the tag line "paid for by John McCain" as a surprise at the end. I don't know if that would be legal but whatever. Anyway, If she somehow turns this around at this point, this argument is going to be the conventional wisdom as to why. Furthermore, the tactic of even appearing to use your opponents words against is always effective-unambiguously airing their commercial would be devastating. I honestly feel like saying something "Congrats on killing your general election chances Hillary." but that's silly. In the end, this, like all ads, is going to be effective iff this is a fear people already have about Obama. In all honesty, the same is probably true of Hillary and I'm not sure the Hillary-McCain perceived NS experience gap is as large as the Obama-Hillary. It would still make a good story for the press if he did it.

Posted by Eamon | February 29, 2008 3:10 PM

The force comin' down with mayhem
Lookin' at my watch, time 3 a.m.

Posted by alkali | February 29, 2008 3:12 PM

I could have sworn it was a McCain ad too.

Posted by right | February 29, 2008 3:13 PM

If Hillary's playing Matchbox 20, Bill has to be listening to Third Eye Blind.

Posted by bjd | February 29, 2008 3:15 PM

Given the crappy campaign she's run, I'm glad she won't be answering the phone. "Madam President, Penn here. We've got a problem and I think I know what we should do ..." Brrr. Makes my blood run cold.

Posted by ostap | February 29, 2008 3:15 PM

I am stunned you would comment on whether it is well-made and noone is expressing outrage at her using the fear card only five days after she accused Obama of using the Rove playbook. What is this ad if not exactly what Bush has been doing for the past six years ?

Posted by Benjamin | February 29, 2008 3:16 PM

Effective? Well-made? Uh, the ad doesn't answer WTF Hillary is doing up at 3 a.m. fully dressed and with her glasses on, ready to answer the Bat-phone. This ad implies to me that she doesn't need sleep: "The Hillarybot will save us!"

Posted by blahblah | February 29, 2008 3:18 PM

Matt said: "But while I'd like to have experienced hands at the levers of power, what I'd really like is a president who has good ideas and the courage to stand up for them."

That's exactly right.

I happen to agree with the argument that a candidate’s judgment is more important than their "experience" - particularly when that experience is measured by their time office (or in national politics).

However, I think that it is entirely possible (perhaps probable) that Sen. Clinton possesses good judgment on variety of issues; but that she has repeatedly failed to demonstrate or express that judgment due to her fear (and those of many Democrats) of being attacked as "weak" on defense or "soft" on terror.

It is not enough to have "experience" if that experience has not helped you to make the right decisions- particularly when those decisions have such grave consequences for our men and women in uniform and the security of our country.

And it is not enough to possess good judgment, if you do not have the political courage to express that judgment and stand up for what is right, particularly when doing so is most difficult politically.

Posted by Aaron M | February 29, 2008 3:20 PM

I believe it's now "Matchbox Twenty," for extra rock-n-roll pretentiousness.

Posted by UN Plaza | February 29, 2008 3:21 PM

I don't watch Television, and notice I didn't say TV. Because TV is a nickname, nicknames are for friends, and Television is no friend of mine.(Lip quivering, bordering on tears)

Posted by Craigory Gregory | February 29, 2008 3:25 PM

I thought it was more of an OAR reference. "It's 3 am and I want to go bed... I got a lady, running through my head..."

Posted by BDG | February 29, 2008 3:25 PM

the response ad:

It's 3:00 AM - Do you know where Bill is?

Posted by avery | February 29, 2008 3:26 PM

What's wrong with the ad is that it is witless and false.

it is very hard to think of a situation that would require waking the president at 3 am to deal with. Ironically enough, the president's response to an actual terrorist attack was to go into hiding.

it feeds into an essentially insane, counterfactual view of the world, driven by nearly meaningless phrases like "American exceptionalism."

The wall fell in 1989. there are no more enemies. there is no threat. There is no more need for teh futbol. the embargo of Cuba didn't work.

This is about self-aggrandizing, corrupt politicians. It's appalling, but unsurprising, that Mark Penn's people advance this narrative.

Posted by jayackroyd | February 29, 2008 3:27 PM

What exactly is unfair about adding a dose of realism to all of this meaningless talk about "the politics of hope"? ( a phrase which means nothing, by the way).

It's not "Rovian" to suggest that whoever the POTUS is has to make critical decisions in a crisis environment where lives may hang in the balance. That's not a distortion or a misrepresentation, that's just how the world works.

Now Obama's argument is because he made a speech opposing the war in Iraq in 2002, that means he has the right judgment for foreign policy. I don't think that kind of assessment can be made on the basis of one speech. Especially when other - much more recent - examples of his judgment have shown a much less steady hand: his unwise comments on Pakistan, his foolish promise to meet unconditionally with dictators, his being too busy to hold a single substantive hearing on Afghanistan in the sub-committee he chairs. Those are not examples of sound judgment.

I'm much more comfortable with having a president who has not only been in and worked in the White House and been around when critical crises were managed, but will have the advice and insights of one of the only people who has actually made those decisions before.

Who do you want advising the President of the United States in a crisis? Who do you want being there with your president at 3:00 AM when the phone rings?

Bill Clinton or Michelle Obama?

Posted by Tim K | February 29, 2008 3:29 PM

I was feeling pretty bad and hopeless after watching this ad. I posted the following thought on Huffington post. I was glad that people rallied around me and it was reassuring to say the least.
Here's the post-
I am an Indian American liberal woman who looks like an Arab. I lost all hope today. I had pinned all my hopes and my children's on the democratic party. I thought they would never appeal to the worst demons in people's minds which by way of this ad she has.Live in fear, they are saying. I'm sure I'll be getting more than a dirty look from my neighbor after this.I am shattered.

Posted by nuana | February 29, 2008 3:34 PM

Mark, how many times have I told you about trolling comments sections as this 'Tim K' guy? Is this what our $5 million is being spent on!?

Posted by Harold Ickes | February 29, 2008 3:41 PM

Give me a break Nuana.

We do live in a dangerous world. The right to vote also comes with the moral responsibility to exercise a reasoned, considered judgment about who the best candidate is. That decision shouldn't just be based on what you hope for, or what you dream about, but what the actual record and qualifications of a candidate are. And part of that is picking a president who can deal with the kind of crises that are inevitable in a dangerous and unpredictable world. That's the voters responsibility.

The reason we have to pick the right person for the job is so that we don't have to be afraid.

Posted by Tim K | February 29, 2008 3:44 PM

What is confusing to me is that in all of Clinton's ads, she seems to suggest that she is awake all night. First there was the night shift ad. And now this.

Please Hillary, for the sake of everyone, get some sleep. From my experience in law school, there is nothing worse than the guy that pulls all-nighters once a week and then proceeds to tell everyone about how he pulls all-nighters once a week. It's not that impressive.

I suggest Ambien. If you don't like the side effects and addictiveness concerns, maybe Tylenol PM is a decent option then.

Posted by Bubba | February 29, 2008 3:47 PM

Tim K,
While I often feel that you bring much needed opposition to these boards, your point about who you'd rather have with the President at 3 a.m. is a foolish one. And not just because Bill and Hillary sleep in separate bedrooms. What you are alluding is faulty and one of the reasons many are opposed to another Clinton Presidency in the first place. You act as though Obama wouldn't have any advisors and would be forced to play rock-paper-scissors with his wife to determine the fate of the world. Please...

Posted by Todd Doug | February 29, 2008 3:48 PM

You know you're watching a train wreck of a campaign when it rips off Walter Mondale's 1984 campaign for the second time.

First it was "Where's the beef?", as deployed against Gary Hart in the primaries.

Now the White House phone commercial (ditto).

If this is the best Hillary can come up with in the primaries, I shudder to think what kind of avalanche would await her in the fall.

Posted by Ranjit | February 29, 2008 3:51 PM

Todd:

No, both Clinton and Obama have able foreign policy advisers. But only one of them has been privy to these decisions being made, and only one of them will have access to the resource of a man who has effectively made these decisions for 8 years.

The comment about sleeping in seperate bedrooms is petty and personal. What business it is of yours whether or not they sleep in the same bed? I'm sick and tired of Obama supporters alluding to problems in the Clintons' marriage as if they are Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson.

Posted by Tim K | February 29, 2008 3:52 PM

Tim K,
Lighten up, I don't care how they sleep. And I'm not an Obama supporter either. Maybe we should just have Barack and Bill sleep together to solve the problem. Head to feet, of course.

Love,
Todd Doug

Posted by Todd Doug | February 29, 2008 3:58 PM

i would just like to thank Craigory Gregory @ 3:25 for the Mr. Show reference. Keep 'em coming, Gleep Glop.

Posted by sean | February 29, 2008 4:09 PM

Tim K, you said: "...both Clinton and Obama have able foreign policy advisers. But only one of them has been privy to these decisions being made.."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that it was reported not too long ago that Hillary did NOT have the security clearance required (while First Lady) to be involved with (or privy to) the big national security decisions of her husband's Administration.

And regarding Sen. Clinton having her husband as a close advisor? Well, ultimately that's the only role he could really play- as an advisor. She’s the one who has to make the final decisions; and based on the judgment she has demonstrated in the past, this does not provide great comfort to me.

Also, as others have already noted, Obama will have his own foreign policy experts and at least most of them already demonstrated the good judgment to oppose the Iraq War from the beginning, just as Obama did (in contrast to most of Sen. Clinton’s foreign policy team, including her husband).

I therefore would trust the judgment of Obama and his group of advisors, over the judgment of Sen. Clinton, her husband, and their group of advisors pretty much any day of the week (including at 3am each morning).

Posted by Aaron M | February 29, 2008 4:11 PM

As someone interested in spearheading the looming nineties alt-rock renaissance, however, I'm pleased to see Matchbox 20 references entering our punditry.

Again we see young Matthew being done in by his lack of historical awareness, as the ad is more properly viewed as invoking the Rolling Stones' "Get Off My Cloud":

It's three a.m., there's too much noise
Don't you people ever wanna go to bed?

Which, it is now apparent, was a cryptic but prescient reference to today's terrorist threat.

Posted by Swopa | February 29, 2008 4:12 PM

The comment about sleeping in seperate bedrooms is petty and personal.

Oh come on, Tim K, you walked right into that one.

Posted by fp | February 29, 2008 4:13 PM

Tim K.,

Good to know you're as tone-deaf about racism as the Clintons themselves.

Nuana,

It is depressing to see the fear bludgeon out so soon. Remember there are Americans out there of all colors working for change, and good luck.

Todd Doug,

Nah, back to back. I bet Bill has stinky feet.

Posted by Persia | February 29, 2008 4:14 PM

And regarding Sen. Clinton having her husband as a close advisor? Well, ultimately that's the only role he could really play- as an advisor. She’s the one who has to make the final decisions; and based on the judgment she has demonstrated in the past, this does not provide great comfort to me.

I dunno, Aaron. Tim seems to be advocating Hillary as Bill's third term winkwinknudgenudgesaynomore.

Posted by Fausto Carmona | February 29, 2008 4:21 PM

"We do live in a dangerous world. The right to vote also comes with the moral responsibility to exercise a reasoned, considered judgment about who the best candidate is. That decision shouldn't just be based on what you hope for, or what you dream about, but what the actual record and qualifications of a candidate are."

And Hillary's "actual record and qualifications" are? I mean, there is an argument to be made that Hillary is more experienced on domestic policy...but what in the world makes her better prepared to handle a military crisis?

I'm not even going to get into the obvious sexism implicit in the "Vote for Hillary because her husband will be around to handle all the tough problems for her!"

Mike

Posted by MBunge | February 29, 2008 4:22 PM

Aaron:

I never made the claim that Hillary had any specific national security "clearance" you are referring to. But that doesn't mean she wasn't aware of, and privy to, discussions between her husband and many of his advisers on many aspects of foreign policy decisions. Certainly absence of specific high-level clearance does not limit a person to any and all information and knowledge of discussions that take place. Whatever decisions Hillary was privy to were still much more than Obama has been privy to. In addition, Hillary has been on the Senate Arms Services committee for 5 years where she has won the respect of many flag officers, including four 4-star generals.

In contrast, Senator Obama can't even take his responsibility as chairman of foreign relations subcommittee seriously and have a substantive hearing on Afghanistan, a conflict he claims is so important to the war on terror. Perhaps if he had waited more than a year after being elected to the senate to start running for president, he would have more time to discharge his responsibility as he should.

As for Bill Clinton as only and adviser, that's still one more resource Obama will not have.

Posted by Tim K | February 29, 2008 4:22 PM

I'm sick and tired of Obama supporters alluding to problems in the Clintons' marriage as if they are Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson.

Somehow I couldn't have imagined Jerry and Pat in wedded bliss. Who would have been the "man" in that relationship?

Posted by Tom K | February 29, 2008 4:25 PM

You're using outmoded ideas of sexuality, Tom K.

Besides, they probably switched.

Posted by Persia | February 29, 2008 4:27 PM

"Certainly absence of specific high-level clearance does not limit a person to any and all information and knowledge of discussions that take place. Whatever decisions Hillary was privy to were still much more than Obama has been privy to."

Vote for Hillary...because she may have been in the general vicinity when other people were actually making decisions!

"As for Bill Clinton as only and adviser, that's still one more resource Obama will not have."

Unless President Obama picks Bill as his Secretary of State.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | February 29, 2008 4:30 PM

You're using outmoded ideas of sexuality, Tom K.

Perhaps I should have substituted top for man. Apologies.

Posted by Tom K | February 29, 2008 4:30 PM

Tom K:

I apologize for my imprecision. I was comparing Obama supporters to Jerry and Pat.

Posted by Tim K | February 29, 2008 4:31 PM

Tim K,
The idea of Bill Clinton as an advisor is obviously something that you feel is a HUGE positive. To some, its a complete turn-off. If I was confident that he would simply put in his knowledge for Hillary to consider and be done with it, that wouuld be one thing. But with his grimy fingerprints all over this campaign, I find that hard to believe. And I really like Bill Clinton. But even the thought of a co-presidency give me the creeps. Sorry, but Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton is too embarrassing for me to take. While that may not be fair to Hillary, maybe she shouldn't allign herself with his Presidency anytime it's convenient.

Posted by Todd Doug | February 29, 2008 4:31 PM

I guess I want to take this in a different direction. Who the hell wants a notorious hothead, no war is a bad war, shoot first and ask questions later jackass like John McCain answering the phone.

Obama should run this ad against McCain, not the other way around.

Clinton is an after-thought. Who cares what she says.

Posted by Curtis | February 29, 2008 4:37 PM

I really like to imagine Pat Robertson keeling over from heart attack while fighting Jerry Falwell for the bottom. I am getting excited just thinking about it. Or maybe its just happy hour being right around the corner...

Posted by Todd Doug | February 29, 2008 4:38 PM

Well I guess we disagree on the value of simply being near someone who has made important decisions.

Ultimately however, even that experience means little to me when Sen. Clinton has demonstrated such poor foreign policy judgment in the past.

Her 2002 Iraq War vote is only the most prominent of her misguided votes (and the one with the most disasterous consequences). There was also her vote on the Kyle-Lieberman Iran amendment and her vote against banning cluster bombs in civilian areas.

But as I said earlier, my guess is that she understood what was the right way to vote in all these cases, but made the decisions that she did out of fear of being labeled soft on defense.

And for me it has always been this tendency on her part to run to the right (in an attempt to "out-tough" the Republicans) on key foreign policy/national security/military issues that has prevented me from trusting her foreign policy instincts.

Posted by Aaron M | February 29, 2008 4:38 PM

Sorry, meant to say "Jerry Falwell's ghost." I really like the idea of Jerry Falwell's ghost and Pat Robertson arguing over bottom position.

Posted by Todd Doug | February 29, 2008 4:41 PM

The 3 am ad is VERY similar to a user generated McCain ad.

Plagiarism?

Posted by casey | February 29, 2008 4:42 PM

Todd Doug:

The fact you refer to Bill Clinton's fingers as "grimy" is disturbing. I won't attempt to characterize those comments any further, but If I know if I referred to Senator Obama is that that kind of petty and personal way I would be accused of being a Republican. Certainly when I really like and respect somebody I don't imply that they are dirty or tainted.

And as for aligning herself with his presidency... at least she has a record working on domestic and foreign policy issues in an administration. Barack Obama was a state legislator only 3 years ago. That's not relevant experience in foreign affairs. When it comes to his relevant experience on the foreign relations he has been derelict.

Posted by Tim K | February 29, 2008 4:43 PM

Tim K,
I don't think that Bill Clinton himself is dirty. But they way he has inserted himself in to this race sure seems to be. I'm not really sure how you could characterize that as "disturbing." I just don't think he's done himself or his wife any favors the past few months.

Posted by Todd Doug | February 29, 2008 4:48 PM

Aaron:

This tendency of taking decisions and making statements for political purposes to ascribe to Hillary Clinton has actually been a very evident pattern with Senator Barack Obama.

He threatened a unilateral strike on Pakistan in order to appear tough enough to be president when those questions were raised. He panders to the anti-war Left by constantly returning to his 2002 speech on the Iraq war and promising unconditional meetings with rogue leaders. He criticizes NAFTA to endear himself to voters in Ohio, while secretly, his advisers get word to Canadian officials that he is lying. He made his speech against the Iraq war in 2002, but when asked two years later how he would have voted he was unsure. He tried to minimize the differences between himself and John Kerry, and himself and George Bush on Iraq, for political purposes.

So it's amusing to hear you somehow imply that Hillary is calculating and Barack is not.

But you're right, when the time came to make a speech in 2002, Obama made a speech.

Posted by Tim K | February 29, 2008 4:51 PM

Funny how any interest in a '90s alt-rock revival evaporates the moment you say "Matchbox 20"

Posted by Alan in SF | February 29, 2008 4:52 PM

All politicians are calculating. Especially ones that have reached this level. I don't think anyone with a brain would deny that. But its all relative. They all pander as well, Tim K. But lets not kid ourselves. Hillary certainly panders more and appears to be the more "calculating" candidate.

Posted by Todd Doug | February 29, 2008 4:56 PM

Todd Doug:

Well by your formulation Barack Obama has no brain because his campaign routinely claims that Hillary will "say and do anything" to win an election, implying that he will not. He and his campaign constantly hold themselves up as waging a different kind of campaign with a "different kind of politics"... a "politics of hope." Well, I just described instances where the exact same question can be raised about Obama in respect to his veracity and authenticity. So what I am very clearly saying is that all that talk is nonsense.

Posted by Tim K | February 29, 2008 5:02 PM

Tim K,
While I'm willing to concede that Obama is calculating, that certainly doesn't mean that everything he says is bullshit. What a silly thought. Yes, they are both politicians. Yes, to reach this stage, you have to pander. But let's be serious, Obama's pandering doesn't come close to Hillary's. Also, you're going to have to do better than this, "He criticizes NAFTA to endear himself to voters in Ohio, while secretly, his advisers get word to Canadian officials that he is lying." Huh?
Listen, I don't want to be painted as an Obama fanatic, because I'm certainly not, but I've never seen anyone on these boards who refuses to concede a point more than you. I know you kind of have to be defensive when dealing with the tone of these boards, but it wears thin. You come off as delusional at times, when its clear you're an intelligent dude.

Posted by Todd Doug | February 29, 2008 5:10 PM

"But you're right, when the time came to make a speech in 2002, Obama made a speech."

And when it was time to cast a vote, Hillary voted to let George W. Bush get thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed and create a foreign policy mess we'll be dealing with in some form or another for 50 years.

Is it just me, or is Tim K acting like he's a girlfriend lashing out at the boyfriend who just dumped Hillary?

Mike

Posted by MBunge | February 29, 2008 5:11 PM

Tim K,
Although, to be fair, there are reasons that Barack comes off as less calculating. He hasn't been around as long, and therefore doesn't have as many decisions to answer to or on which to flip-flop. Happy? C'mon, its Friday.

Posted by Todd Doug | February 29, 2008 5:15 PM

Todd:

I never would say or imply that *everything* Obama says is nonsense. I just said that this distinction he has set forth between himself and Senator Clinton where one is authentic and the other is calculating, is nonsense. And his talk about "the politics of hope" is both meaningless and an example of nonsense. That's specifically what I was saying.

On the NAFTA question have you read the reports on the newswires today and from CTV in Canada concerning an Obama adviser getting word to Canadian officials not to be concerned about Obama's talk about NAFTA. In fact, the reason this issue (and all the pandering on BOTH sides, Clinton and Obama) is even coming up is because Obama attacked Clinton first on NAFTA.

Posted by Tim K | February 29, 2008 5:16 PM

"I just said that this distinction he has set forth between himself and Senator Clinton where one is authentic and the other is calculating, is nonsense."

Is that sort of like how the distinction set forth by Hillary that she is "ready on day one" and Obama isn't, is also nonsense?

Mike

Posted by MBunge | February 29, 2008 5:21 PM

Tim K,
Fair enough. Neither candidate is perfect, but I don't think you are being incredibly fair. It seems to me that the distinctions that have been set forth have come from members of the media and Obama supporters. Either way, I'm out. Have a good weekend. Good luck on Tuesday!

Late,
Todd "Scott Stapp" Doug

Posted by Todd Doug | February 29, 2008 5:24 PM

Mike:

Well both candidates are ready on day one. Hillary is ready on day one to govern, and Obama is ready on day one to give a great speech.

Posted by Tim K | February 29, 2008 5:54 PM

Tim K,

I found your response to my comment to be rather sloppy and lacking in both reason and best available evidence.

Allow me to break down your comments one by one:

1. Obama indicated he would strike Al Qaeda in Pakistan if the intelligence was good and if Musharraf refused or was unable to act. He didn't say this to look tough, he said it because he believes it would be the right thing to do. Sen. Clinton (and foreign policy/national security experts) agreed with him on this (when she was not accusing him of simply wanting to "bomb Pakistan").

2. So let me understand this: when a candidate refers to a decision that he or she made in an effort to demonstrate their sound judgment to voters, it’s referred to as PANDERING?
I think that’s incredibly silly. But in addition, it’s important to remember that Obama did not just oppose the war in that speech- he opposed it for very specific reasons; reasons that Sen. Clinton SHOULD have considered before giving up the authority of Congress to take the country to war to GWB.

In his 2002 Speech, Obama said the following:

"I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda."

But whatever, it was "just a speech."

3. There is no absolutely no evidence that Obama's advisor told the Canadians that Obama was "lying" about anything. Obama has been consistently critical of NAFTA his ENTIRE career, supporting free trade while also demanding that any free-trade deals include provisions that protect the environment and ensure fair labor laws. His record and his speeches on this issue are entirely consistent. (Perhaps his advisor asked the Canadians not to worry because Obama’s primary objections to the current NAFTA law deal with its environment and labor provisions- areas in which the Canadians already have in place provisions tougher than our own.)

4. Regarding his comments about Iraq in 2004, it seems you have been taken in by Bill Clinton's dishonest portrayals (prior to the Nevada caucuses) of what Obama actually said (by taking Obama’s statement out of its original context). As Obama said at the last debate, the most important time to oppose a war is BEFORE it happens. Once the decision is made, it is very difficult to get out of war- because doing so involves having to admit defeat, and having to appear as if you are not supporting the troops, etc. In 2004, we were already knee deep in Iraq, and at that time most experts believed that it was still salvageable IF we could improve security around the country. Obama had only stated that at that time his objectives and Bush's were the same: giving our troops all the resources they needed to secure Iraq. It was not until perhaps a year or so later that most reality-based observers began to realize that 1) there was no military solution and only a political reconciliation could keep the country from civil war and 2) the U.S. presence there was serving as a disincentive for the Iraq Government to finally engage in true political reconciliation.

Posted by Aaron M | February 29, 2008 5:56 PM

Aaron M:

Let's take your response point by point:

1. On Pakistan. The statement Obama was making regarding actionable intelligence was obvious. This isn't some original idea Barack Obama thought up on his own. The criticism that presidential candidates should be going around discussing situations under which they would invade allied nations. That's naive.

2. It was *just* a speech. And the reason I say it was *just* a speech is because he was in a position of zero national prominence, importance or responsibility at the time as he was a state legislator. It wasn't risky or courageous considering he represented a solidly Democrat senate district in Chicago.

3. On NAFTA... last I checked CTV was standing by their story. That's not "no evidence." If your interpretation is true then what Obama has been telling the people of Ohio is definitely an example of pandering.

4. I have difficulty understanding your point here. So Obama showed his superior judgment when he made his 2002 speech... even while most "reality-based observers" (including the majority of members of Congress and the American people) supported going to war. But then in 2004 when he was running for senate Obama was not able to show any great foresight in judgment and was just part of the pack of other "reality-based observers." Maybe he just consulted his advisers before he made his 2002 speech and got lucky. I opposed the invasion of Iraq in 2002, as well, but I don't claim to be up to the job on that basis alone.

Posted by Tim K | February 29, 2008 6:15 PM

I prefer this reworking of the 3 a.m. ad.

And Tim K must be an Obama supporter in disguise, because no real booster draws upon so much tedium.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | February 29, 2008 6:25 PM

Aaron:

Let me just tighten that up even further for to be precise.

There is a difference between speeches and action. That's not just a slogan, here is an illustration of the difference:

Barack Obama made a speech opposing the war at an anti-war rally in 2002.

When he first came to the national spot in 2004 and was questioned by the press about his position he couldn't answer how he would have voted had he been given the chance, and he tried to minimize the difference between himself and President Bush on the conduct of the war.

When he came to the US Senate and had to begin casting votes he voted to fund the war (even though he promised during campaign not to) and proceeded to vote exactly like Senator Clinton on Iraq.

My point: There's a difference between making a speech when you have no responsibility, and casting a vote when the pressure is on.

Posted by Tim K | February 29, 2008 6:29 PM

Tim K,

I think we're starting to go around in circles here, so this will be my last response on this thread.

Going back again (briefly) on each of your last points:

1. I just don't agree with you here. I don't think it was naive. And putting pressure publicly on authoritarian leaders who (in this case) had been playing our government for fools (by wasting billions of our tax dollars on who knows what) can sometimes be useful. In any event, saying Obama is (or was) naïve for making is comments, represents little more than a repetition of now tired (and disingenuous) talking points employed both the Clinton and McCain camps.

2. First, just because a person is not of prominence doesn't make his or her judgment any less impressive. Second, Obama was in the middle of a very competitive primary race (where he was the relative unknown) AND he knew at the time that he'd have to go up against a very well funded Republican opponent in the general election (even though that opponent much later dropped out due to scandal); and this was during a time when even many Democrats supported the decision to go to war with Iraq.

3. CVT stood by their story, and the Obama campaign continues to say that it is inaccurate. So you either believe the unknown source that reported the conversation to CTV or you believe the Obama campaign. If you don't believe the Obama camp's denials or claims that the report of the conversation is inaccurate, well then, I guess we disagree here as well. The bottom line is that Obama has publicly made clear that he wants the NAFTA agreement renegotiated to improve the environmental and labor provisions. He has been consistent about this throughout his political career, and I believe that he will try to do this (as I believe Sen. Clinton would as well, since she has also gone on the record supporting renegotiating these areas of the agreement).

4. Obama took the position that he did in 2004 because based on the information he had at the time (regarding the need for greater security) that was the best (military) decision to be made at that time. Nobody (save those further to the Left) faults him or Sen. Clinton or other Democrats for wanting to salvage the mission in 2004 when it may have still been possible. And regarding his 2002 speech being the result of advice from foreign policy advisors? What foreign policy advisors? Obama was a State Senator and the least well known of an entire group of Democrats running to be their Party's nominee for the US Senate. I don't think he was being advised just yet by some of the most prominent foreign policy minds of our country. Anyhow, we only really know two things: that in 2002 Obama was right to oppose going to war in Iraq, and he opposed the war for SPECIFIC (and now almost prescient) reasons; and that 2) Sen. Clinton was wrong to vote to give the President the authority to go to war in Iraq, for all the reason that Obama gave to oppose the war. Everything else is just conjecture.

Anyhow, that’s it. I’m out of here! Thanks for the interesting debate Tim K.

Have a great weekend.

Posted by Aaron M | February 29, 2008 6:48 PM

Tim K,

I think we're starting to go around in circles here, so this will be my last response on this thread.

Going back again (briefly) on each of your last points:

1. I just don't agree with you here. I don't think it was naive. And putting pressure publicly on authoritarian leaders who (in this case) had been playing our government for fools (by wasting billions of our tax dollars on who knows what) can sometimes be useful. In any event, saying Obama is (or was) naïve for making is comments, represents little more than a repetition of now tired (and disingenuous) talking points employed both the Clinton and McCain camps.

2. First, just because a person is not of prominence doesn't make his or her judgment any less impressive. Second, Obama was in the middle of a very competitive primary race (where he was the relative unknown) AND he knew at the time that he'd have to go up against a very well funded Republican opponent in the general election (even though that opponent much later dropped out due to scandal); and this was during a time when even many Democrats supported the decision to go to war with Iraq.

3. CVT stood by their story, and the Obama campaign continues to say that it is inaccurate. So you either believe the unknown source that reported the conversation to CTV or you believe the Obama campaign. If you don't believe the Obama camp's denials or claims that the report of the conversation is inaccurate, well then, I guess we disagree here as well. The bottom line is that Obama has publicly made clear that he wants the NAFTA agreement renegotiated to improve the environmental and labor provisions. He has been consistent about this throughout his political career, and I believe that he will try to do this (as I believe Sen. Clinton would as well, since she has also gone on the record supporting renegotiating these areas of the agreement).

4. Obama took the position that he did in 2004 because based on the information he had at the time (regarding the need for greater security) that was the best (military) decision to be made at that time. Nobody (save those further to the Left) faults him or Sen. Clinton or other Democrats for wanting to salvage the mission in 2004 when it may have still been possible. And regarding his 2002 speech being the result of advice from foreign policy advisors? What foreign policy advisors? Obama was a State Senator and the least well known of an entire group of Democrats running to be their Party's nominee for the US Senate. I don't think he was being advised just yet by some of the most prominent foreign policy minds of our country. Anyhow, we only really know two things: that in 2002 Obama was right to oppose going to war in Iraq, and he opposed the war for SPECIFIC (and now almost prescient) reasons; and that 2) Sen. Clinton was wrong to vote to give the President the authority to go to war in Iraq, for all the reasons that Obama gave to oppose the war. Everything else is just conjecture.

Anyhow, that’s it. I’m out of here! Thanks for the interesting debate Tim K.

Have a great weekend.

Posted by Aaron M | February 29, 2008 6:48 PM

Good night, this mild ad has the Obama campaign howling like a stuck goose.

This is nothing, folks. Wait 'til the GOP 527s get to work.

Posted by John Petty | February 29, 2008 6:53 PM

Sorry. Didn't mean to post that twice.

But real quickly, just responding to Tim's last post (and then REALLY, that's it).

Tim you said: "When he first came to the national spot in 2004 and was questioned by the press about his position he couldn't answer how he would have voted had he been given the chance, and he tried to minimize the difference between himself and President Bush on the conduct of the war."

Again, this is the argument that Bill Clinton made and it is very misleading because the former President failed to provide Obama's full quote.

Obama said:

"But, I'm not privy to the Senate intelligence reports," Mr. Obama said. "What would I have done? I don't know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made."

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F04E0DA1430F931A15750C0A9619C8B63

It is that LAST sentence that Bill Clinton (conveniently, I think) left out. And Obama was exactly right, the case was NOT made. And even in hindsight we now know the case was not made even to the Senators who were privy to the Senate Intelligence- in fact, Sen. Clinton did not even take the time to read the NIE: http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/few-senators-read-iraq-nie-report-2007-06-19.html

Anyhow, now I am really out.

Thanks again Tim K.

Posted by Aaron M | February 29, 2008 7:06 PM

It's an idiotic ad. Yglesias thinks it's good because he's trying to imagine how those rubes in the provinces think, and he reckons it'll put one over on them. Just another example of the Harvard-->Beltway cloistered life.

Clinton's foolish to keep yammering on about "experience", because when it comes down to it she really has no more useful experience than Obama, and a lot of her "experience" involves running clusterfucks. And these are not Beltway secrets, either.

Posted by sglover | February 29, 2008 7:10 PM

Just as salient of a question: Which of the two of them is most likely to do more to prevent a 3 a.m. phone call?

Posted by Swifty | February 29, 2008 7:19 PM

Swifty:

Can you expand a little bit on your question?

Posted by Tim K | February 29, 2008 7:29 PM

Matchbox 20. They had a brief moment when their lead vocalist (whose name I've long forgotten) could have broken one way, sharpened that sarcastic, bitter edge he had in a couple of those early hits, and been the next Burton Cummings. Instead, he broke the other way, into the land of maudlin whining.

Posted by low-tech cyclist | February 29, 2008 8:26 PM

Since the media is failing to investigate Obama, this ad is totally appropriate. He did not hold one hearing on Afghanistan because he was too busy running for President. That's great judgment.

He only rejected Farrakhan's support because Hillary challenged him. This would be the equivalent of McCain hesistating in rejecting the endorsement of a David Duke. That's another great judgment.

During the debates, he basically paraphrases her answers. His new name is Barack "Ditto" Obama.

He lied about Rezko on national TV. His only connection to him was 5 hours of legal work. However, his home sale is tied to Rezko. The real estate agent that listed both the lot and home stated both properties had to be sold together. The seller insisted on this condition. That's why Rezko's wife bought the lot on the same day. Obama is so manipulative.

Go Hillary!!!

Posted by EWard | February 29, 2008 10:50 PM

Unbelievably stupid ad.

Now I see why people are questioning her about it vis-a-vis the "experience" argument.

And why everyone else is laughing about it.

EWard: "He only rejected Farrakhan's support because Hillary challenged him. This would be the equivalent of McCain hesistating in rejecting the endorsement of a David Duke."

Hey, genius. McCain just accepted the endorsement of Christian freak show Hagee...

The rest of your rant is on a par.

Swifty has it right: the real test is who actually reads national security reports that say "Bin Laden poised to strike in the US."

And who has a more realistic foreign policy to prevent the US from being a target. And who is more likely to prevent the US from engaging in military adventurism.

In the latter respect, Obama doesn't do so well - but neither does Clinton, let alone war monger McCain.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | February 29, 2008 11:11 PM

Senator Clinton's supporters here are a pretty sad bunch. Before the primary campaign, their arguments might have carried some weight. But after seeing what an utter botch Senator Clinton has made out of running against a relative unknown, we can imagine with fearful accuracy how good a President she would be.

She is either a complete idiot or she trusts complete idiots. That's not even debatable. And to anyone with an open mind, that's decisive.
.

Posted by sunsin | March 1, 2008 1:24 AM

Senator Clinton has hypocritically grasped the same mantle of fear that she herself has criticized. By doing so she betrays not only herself and the Democratic party but also deeply offends its members who have defended our civil liberties and who now must contend with images that threaten an ominous end in store for our sleeping children lest we elect leaders insufficiently "tough" on national security. These tactics are base and as Sen. Clinton herself has stated they smack of desperation and are to be ignored.

"So don’t take this security argument, they are doing it to us again. If you’re paying attention you saw two weeks ago, Karl Rove, in a room like this, telling the National Republican Committee ‘here’s your game plan folks. Here’s how we’re going to win.’ We’re going to win by getting everybody scared again. Contrary to Franklin Roosevelt who had nothing to fear but fear itself, this crowd [Rove and the NRC] is all we got is fear and we’re going to keep playing the fear card."

Remarks of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton at The United Auto Workers (UAW) Legislative Policy Conference, Feb. 8, 2006 http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=251414

Posted by JP | March 1, 2008 3:43 AM

Senator Clinton has hypocritically grasped the same mantle of fear that she herself has criticized. By doing so she betrays not only herself and the Democratic party but also deeply offends its members who have defended our civil liberties and who now must contend with images that threaten an ominous end in store for our sleeping children lest we elect leaders insufficiently "tough" on national security. These tactics are base and as Sen. Clinton herself has stated they smack of desperation and are to be ignored.

"So don’t take this security argument, they are doing it to us again. If you’re paying attention you saw two weeks ago, Karl Rove, in a room like this, telling the National Republican Committee ‘here’s your game plan folks. Here’s how we’re going to win.’ We’re going to win by getting everybody scared again. Contrary to Franklin Roosevelt who had nothing to fear but fear itself, this crowd [Rove and the NRC] is all we got is fear and we’re going to keep playing the fear card."

Remarks of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton at The United Auto Workers (UAW) Legislative Policy Conference, Feb. 8, 2006 http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=251414

Posted by JP | March 1, 2008 3:43 AM

Anyone notice that immediately after Hillary's ad, Obama denounced and rejected that type of fear-mongering ad only to turn around and release the same type of ad? He said, "We've seen these ads before. They're the kind that play on people's fears to try to scare up votes." He even added he doesn't think it will work.

I fail to see how he is an example of the "new style of politics". I guess he was against these type of ads, before he was for it.

In my view he's just a talking head-- here's my youtube video: Obama "Talks too Much". He's All Hat, No Cattle.
Enjoy.

Frankly, at 3 a.m., I want a President who will PUSH THE RIGHT BUTTON.

Posted by HRCin08 | March 1, 2008 9:44 AM

"It's an idiotic ad. Yglesias thinks it's good because he's trying to imagine how those rubes in the provinces think, and he reckons it'll put one over on them. Just another example of the Harvard-->Beltway cloistered life."

That is spot on.

Also, Matchbox 20 were and always will be total shit. I thought that was beyond debate but i guess not.

Posted by The Slider | March 1, 2008 9:48 AM

"It's an idiotic ad. Yglesias thinks it's good because he's trying to imagine how those rubes in the provinces think, and he reckons it'll put one over on them. Just another example of the Harvard-->Beltway cloistered life."

That is spot on.

Also, Matchbox 20 were and always will be total shit. I thought that was beyond debate but i guess not.

Posted by The Slider | March 1, 2008 9:49 AM

"This seems like a pretty effective and well-made ad to me"

Meaning you got through it without laughing out loud? My wife and I, parents of two kids 5 and 7, found it, errr, cheap, ineffective, and beyond parody. I'm not sure why Hillary chose to condescend and insult, but that's Republican turf.

Posted by rickhavoc | March 1, 2008 9:52 AM

Jon Stewart had it right. "Obama should be running for President of a small country first."

Posted by EWard | March 1, 2008 1:53 PM