About Channel '08  |  Blog Partner: PrezVid.com  |  RSS Feeds RSS Feed  (What's RSS?)

Clinton Invokes Your Kids in New Ad

Hillary Clinton just brought your kids into the argument. A new 30-second spot airing in Texas raises the question of national security experience, suggesting to Texas parents that an Obama presidency means you and your kids won't sleep soundly.

"It's 3 a.m. and your children are safe and asleep," the announcer says. "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 3 a.m. and your children are safe and asleep. Who do you want answering the phone?"

News reports suggested earlier this week that the Clinton campaign would start a "kitchen sink" strategy to counter Barack Obama's rise. Do you think this ad is part of that? Or are the claims in this ad legitimate? Leave your thoughts in the comments section below.

UPDATE: Obama quickly responded to Clinton's ad.

"When that call gets answered, shouldn't the president be the one -- the only one -- who had judgment and courage to oppose the Iraq war from the start?"

-- Ed O'Keefe

By Ed O'Keefe |  February 29, 2008; 10:56 AM ET Ad Watch , Hillary Rodham Clinton
Previous: Clinton Fights On in Ohio With New Ads | Next: Clinton's Messages on Letterman

Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



So the Clinton Machine begins to spin another web of deception. Not only are they devaluing 11 straight wins for Obama, but they are threatening to sue Texas if she doesn't win. Back room politics are shining in the Clinton campaign. Come on Texas don't be deceived - if you want true change in Washington then vote for Obama. If you want our Government to stay glued to lobbiests making the decisions, then vote for her, but be assured if she wins, NOTHING WILL CHANGE except maybe you're wages will be garnished to pay for her mandatory health insurance plan...

Posted by: frillymail1017 | February 29, 2008 12:14 PM

I knew Hillary was the candidate of the past but 44 years. This clearly harkens back to the Lyndon Johnson ads run against Goldwater in the 1964 campaign, showing kids playing and then a muchroom cloud from a nuclear bomb. This just goes to show in spades that Hillary is the candidate who uses FEAR and devisiveness in her attempt to win this election; and she dares to compare Barrack Obama to George W Bush and accuse the Obama Campaign of using tactics right out of Karl Rove's playbook. Using people's children in such a direct way to instill fear is dispicable, even by Clinton's already low standards. The voters really need to send Hillary Clinton packing; can I suggest maybe back to 1964?

Posted by: Anonymous | February 29, 2008 1:02 PM

Not sure about he effectiveness of this ad, and if it backfires.

How do you frame this ad published by the Clinton campaign?

http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=1801

.

Posted by: Jeff | February 29, 2008 1:05 PM

Maybe Hillary REALLY is as confused as she pretends to be about what Senator Obama's message of CHANGE is really all about. It is about changing the politics of FEAR and devisiveness that has been tearing our country apart for one thing.

The only thing Hillary Clinton has going for her in this campaign has been some good ideas on some issues. Unfortunately for her, they are not markedly different from any of her Democratic opponents, including those who have already exited the race for the nomination as well as Senator Obama. What Hillary's use of scare tactics to promote herself on the subject of National Security proves is that she is the candidate who will change NOTHING in Washington DC. She will work to keep this country devided, along her own personal demographic lines, and her devisive ways will lead to still more gridlock in government that will insure that nothing is accomplished, including all of those fine policies that she and others have been pitching. I doubt electing Hillary Clinton will take this country back 44 years (which is where the idea for her new ad comes from) but we will certainly be stuck in a crossbreed of the worst aspects from both the Bush and Clinton administrations of the past.

Posted by: Anonymous | February 29, 2008 1:11 PM

GOOD LORD ! from negativism to fear mongering, cant this lady ever be decent and positive..there is one man who is trying to give a message of hope , hope to fight the evils of the world and here is a lady who is trying to create fear .

Mrs Clinton..last time you woke up at 3am you sent the troops to Iraq now where ?

Posted by: Taruna | February 29, 2008 1:16 PM

I've been reading the comments about this ad, not only on this website but others, and overwhelmingly it shows that the ad is not well received. People see it as old and tired strategy that is not effective with today's more informed audience.

Posted by: Interesting | February 29, 2008 1:40 PM

I think that the question asked in this ad is of critical importance, but Senator Clinton is not the person I'd want answering that phone.

Posted by: Jerry | February 29, 2008 1:41 PM

As a mother and resident of nyc I can tell you that yes, I want a commander-in-chief that will be THERE when a disaster strikes, not a complete fool like bush who was busily reading golden books and serpentining about the skies on 9/11 or god know where during Katrina. I don't want some fool who decides we can all visualize our happy thoughts and hope for change. This isn't something new, this has been the main problem with obama's candidacy since the start.

Posted by: al | February 29, 2008 1:52 PM

Clinton Goes Nuclear in Final Ad -- And Plays for Sympathy" ABC Post
Sad to say Hillary, is trying anything and,everything she can to gain sympathy.I will say if there were a phone call ..and she was on the phone I would know it was because she had been elected. That in its self is dangerous!!!!!!!!!!!!! That the US of A was being attacked. What a shame it would be if we had to be afraid of that too.........Hillary save face now sweetie...It's not all just about Medical insurance. Yes, that's a very important part of it but, there are larger concerns at this time, our Nation faces. It takes an even tempered, a strong person to represent the US as President. These antics just do not work. The threat of a Nuclear bomb, is not the way to show us to vote for you..Now your really not putting any thought into what your doing, these ads are in bad taste.Its time for a rest dear....

Posted by: Anonymous | February 29, 2008 1:58 PM

This ad is nothing but scare tactics right out of Karl Roves page.
Mrs. Clinton don't you have any positive massage for the American people?
How could you so mean dragging kids in to the dirty politics?
It shows how desperate you are to get into the white house again and wants to get up at 3 o'clock to give nod for another war. Please be sensible, be positive. Don't think there are always bad things happening in the world. Good things happen too all the times. But alas your mind always roaming with bad things.

Posted by: Zafir | February 29, 2008 2:06 PM

Well, Al, at least we agree about Bush. However, Obama has shown better judgment than Clinton on all the decisions that affect us now. He spoke boldly against the Iraq war and was a critic of NAFTA from the beginning. His campaign has clearly been run with the wisdom of someone truly presidential, whereas Clinton is still trying to find the right strategy and goes from crybaby, to anger, to whiner, to scare tactics. These aren't president traits.

I don't care for McCain and his warmongering policy, but I respect him for being steadfastly in the wrong. Clinton, however, has lost all my respect. I thought she would be different from her husband, but alas she's the same, she's the past.

Posted by: Interesting | February 29, 2008 2:09 PM

Hell YEAH we should be bringing the future of children into this argument! This IS all about our kids and about the kind of world they will be growing up in. It's about our future and our children's future.

If obama released a similar ad you would all be weeping, albeit very gently, and so totally touched by his awesome caring.

Posted by: al | February 29, 2008 2:13 PM

Obama's ad wouldn't sound like this at all. He's uplifting, not fear-inspiring.

Posted by: Not Al Again | February 29, 2008 2:22 PM

The thought of Obama being the next POTUS
inspires fear in me.
I am not looking to elect a smooth talking motivational speaker, I want someone who I know can do the job.

Posted by: al | February 29, 2008 2:41 PM

Al, Clinton and Obama have the same ideas, varying extremely little in what they say they'll accomplish. You're right, Clinton has had more experience, but it was experience in failure. Health care, for example, never got anywhere because she didn't know how to build consensus and did everything secretly. The bill was immediately rejected because of that. She had experience in foreign affairs, and what does she do? She votes for a preemptive, illegal and immoral war. So, she had a chance to demonstrate that she would unnecessarily cost Americans their lives and the insurmountable debt that wars incur, but flubbed it. You're advocating giving her a second chance. I'd rather give a first chance to someone who got the Iraq war right from the start.

Posted by: Anonymous | February 29, 2008 2:58 PM

Since Hillary seems so hell bent to bring the welfare and safety of children into this campaign as an issue; first by painting herself as a champion of children's rights and health care and now using our children as a fear mongering strategy to secure their parents' vote,let's examine how truly concerned Hillary is with the safety and welfare of Children everywhere:

Cluster bombs and landmines are particularly terrifying weapons that wreak havoc on communities trying to recover from war. They are fatal impediments to reconstruction and rehabilitation of agricultural land; they destroy valuable livestock; they disable otherwise productive members of society; they maim or kill children trying to salvage them for scrap metal.

Over 150 nations have signed the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty. It pains me that our great nation has not. But in the autumn of 2006, there was a chance to take a step in the right direction: Senate Amendment No. 4882, an amendment to a Pentagon appropriations bill that would have banned the use of cluster bombs in civilian areas.

Senator Obama of Illinois voted IN FAVOR of the ban.

Senator Clinton of New York voted AGAINST the ban.

Could this have anything to do with Hillary's heavy involvement with the arms industry in this country? Special interests trump children in a Clinton administration.

Posted by: Anonymous | February 29, 2008 3:08 PM

everyone says obama is for change, change to what? should everyone get down on thier knees and swear alligence to him. all he seems to bring is good cheer with no forsight as to what the country needs. he says elect me and I'll give you the world, do people honestly believe this?

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

If Clinton were to answer the WH phone at 3 am, the only question I have is, which Hillary Clinton would answer??

That's a roll of the dice I don't want to take. btw, cast my vote this morning, and fully plan to Caucus on Tuesday for OBAMA in '08!!!

Posted by: Andrew | February 29, 2008 3:19 PM

I'd rather have Hillary have my back when the going gets tough, rather than Obama's rhetorical candy land foreign policy. I'm sure Putin, Castro, Kim Jong Ill, and the leader of Iran, are so enamoured by Obama's words of working together, their hoisting their American Flags with pride and honor.

Good commerical, its about time Hillary starts drawing such contrasts.

Posted by: Pete | February 29, 2008 4:32 PM

Why is it that the Obama campaign can continue to project itself as this positive, new approach to campaigning and politics when the only words I hear out of David Plouffe's mouth are criticisms, accusations of dirty tactics and the words "fear-mongering"? The Obama campaign is the only ones making accusations of "fear-mongering" and this to me seems to fan the flames of fear-mongering even more than the ads or statements to which they are directed. Its almost like reverse psychology. We are going to accuse you of instilling fear in Americans when the act of calling it ""fear-mongering" is what actually causes people to fear. Ridiculous.

Posted by: Ben | February 29, 2008 4:53 PM

TV POLITICAL AD:
... Riiiing ... Riiiing ... Riiiing ... Riiiing ... Riiiiiiiing .........

VIEWER:
Shouldn't that experienced-looking lady answer the damn phone??

Posted by: bruce | February 29, 2008 5:22 PM

An update to Hillary's equivalent to the LBJ campaign's 'Daisy' ad might show her desperately looking for Bill, after his spot in their double bed turns out to be empty. "Now where did that man go tonight? Off cattin' around again, just when I need him most . . . "

Posted by: oldhonky | February 29, 2008 7:41 PM

An update to Hillary's equivalent to the LBJ campaign's 'Daisy' ad might show her desperately looking for Bill, after his spot in their double bed turns out to be empty. "Now where did that man go tonight? Off cattin' around again, just when I need him most . . . "

Posted by: oldhonky | February 29, 2008 7:48 PM

What could be lower than exploiting children? Perhaps sueing for a desired result in Texas? No, not even that.

Hillary is exploiting children and appealing openly for sysmpathy. The better candidate has won, pure and simple.

Support Obama against McCain, it's time to come together and move forward.

Posted by: gmundenat | February 29, 2008 9:09 PM

sorry, as evidenced by your snarky post, this party is way beyond coming together after this. obama and his supporters have alienated 1/2 the democrats in this country. If he does somehow woosh his way in as the nominee, the best to hope for is an independant candidate to take on mccain. obama will be creamed.

Posted by: al | February 29, 2008 9:34 PM

Open your eyes and read. Do the research the internet has all the answers? Please do your research.
Obama has an ad that plays some of his Rally in Youngstown please listen to it.
"My White House" I thought it was the peoples White House. He also says something about not taking money from Lobbyists. Where is he getting so much money.

Though Obama has returned thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from registered federal lobbyists since he declared his candidacy in February, his presidential campaign has maintained ties with lobbyists and lobbying firms to help raise some of the $58.9 million he collected through the first six months of 2007. Obama has raised more than $1.4 million from members of law and consultancy firms led by partners who are lobbyists, The Los Angeles Times reported last week. And The Hill, a Washington newspaper, reported earlier this year that Obama's campaign had reached out to lobbyists' networks to use their contacts to help build his fund-raising base.
This activity, along with Obama's past contributions from lobbyists and PACs, has drawn fire from opposing campaigns. Some political analysts say Obama, by casting himself as an uncorrupted good-government crusader, has set himself up for charges of hypocrisy.

Posted by: susie | February 29, 2008 10:44 PM

Swiftboat.

Old-time Washington politics.

Obama raises most of his money online.

Posted by: Iwantmyvoicetobeheard | March 1, 2008 4:49 PM

if Hillery is the most experience,she should be the one winning most of the primaries.The reality on the ground will determine the one with the most experience.If she dont have a good network on the ground,she will lose,because it takes experience to convert into winning.
If Obama is running a good campaign,it means he is the one with the experience.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 1, 2008 6:53 PM

Susie,
These arguments are not productive at all - everyone should stop putting each other down. Reality check - both Clinton & Obama are better than McCain (unless you want to stay at war for 100yrs) - at this point the only real argument is whether you want to try and restore civility in government or continue inroad fighting. No matter what the democrats need to stick together after the primaries - the republicans love our fighting amongst each other - do not let them win!!!!!!!!

For real campaign figures please go to http://projects.washingtonpost.com/2008-presidential-candidates/finance/candidates/hillary-clinton/ to see breakdown on contributions. You will see that Hillary is the one with PAC money and the big dollars she had to refund/donate to charity from her Chinese friend who was arrested by Feds. Obama's is from individuals, millions of individuals. The Clinton campaign has been poorly run - money wasted (all over the news) - small vendors/hotels scrambling to get paid for Clinton campaign extravagance in numerous states (i.e. food/lodging/cleaning up huge messes left by her supporters):(.

Posted by: skimom | March 2, 2008 12:49 AM

Skimon,
I am independent, I vote for the person. I know all about Hillary and her mistakes and what she has done wrong. We all make mistakes. I don't know enough about Mr. Obama to vote for him. For me if not Hillary then it will be Mr. McCain.

The authentic Barack Obama? We just don't know. The level of uncertainty is too high," Obama hasn't been involved in any "transformative battles" where he might anger any of the party's interest groups. "If his voting record in the past is the real Barack Obama, then there isn't going to be any bipartisanship.
Check out obamatruth.org.

Posted by: Susie | March 2, 2008 12:45 PM

WHY HAS THE MEDIA NOT SAID ONE WORD ABOUT THE FACT THAT HILLARY CLINTON CURRENTLY HAS A CAMPAIGN FINANCE FRAUD LAWSUIT BEING HEARD IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES. (CASE # BC304174)
Hillary Clinton is facing a Campaign Finance Fraud case in court in California. During her campaign for her New York Senate Seat, Hillary Clinton, asked a man named Peter Paul do a fundraising event for her. It took place in Hollywood California, and involved celebrity performers like Cher, and celebity guests like Brad Pitt, and Jennifer Aniston. The funraising event raised $1.2 million dollars for Hillary Clinton's US Senate campaign. When it was revealed in the mainstream press a short time after the event, that Peter Paul, Hillary's fundraiser, had a crIminal background, Hillary lied about knowing him, or receiving $1.2 millions in campaign financing from him. She also filed documents with the FEC, and did not report the $1.2 million dollars she had received from (Peter Paul), the fundraiser, THIS IS A FELONY CRIME.
VIDEO evidence, and PHONE CALL evidence, as well as LETTERS, show cleary, and with no doubt, that Hillary Clinton knew Peter Paul, and had asked him to organize the Hollywood Fundraiser.
(There is a YOUTUBE VIDEO OF Peter Paul showing this evidence of his involvement with Hillary Clinton as weLl as reveailing that he has cheques, and invoices specifically related to the fundraiser for from Hillary Clinton.
The YOUTUBE video is called: "THE SHOCKING VIDEO HILLARY DOES NOT WANT YOU TO SEE"
This YOUTUBE VIDEO shows the evidence Peter Paul plans to present in the Superior Court of California, case #BC304174

GOOGLE: HILLARY AND PETER PAUL TO FIND THE BACKSTORY,
AND MOST IMPORTANTLY WATCH THE YOUTUBE VIDEO TITLED: "THE SHOCKING VIDEO HILLARY DOES NOT WANT YOUR TO SEE".

SOMEHOW THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA HAS DECIDED NOT TO TELL THE WHOLE TRUTH ABOUT HILLARY
CLINTON!! WHY IS THAT? WHY ARE THEY NOT REPORTING THAT SHE IS A DEFENDNT IN A FRAUD CASE CONCERNING A $1.2 MILLION DOLLAR FUNDRAISER, SHE HAD FOR HER U.S SENATE CAMPAIGN.

I ASK THAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE BE TOLD THE TRUTH, AND THE WHOLE TRUTH ABOUT THE FRAUD CASE CONCERNING HILLARY CLINTON, WHICH IS PENDING IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES. (CASE # BC304174)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA WEBSITE ADDRESS: www.lasuperiorcourt.org/CIVILCASESUMMARY/INDEX.ASP
ENTER CASE # BC304174

THERE YOU WILL SEE THE FRAUD CASE PENDING INWHICH HILLARY CLINTON IS A DEFENDANT.

THE PLAINTIFF IN THE CASE IS: PETER PAUL


Posted by: Denise | March 2, 2008 2:42 PM

WHY HAS THE MEDIA NOT SAID ONE WORD ABOUT THE FACT THAT HILLARY CLINTON CURRENTLY HAS A CAMPAIGN FINANCE FRAUD LAWSUIT BEING HEARD IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES. (CASE # BC304174)
Hillary Clinton is facing a Campaign Finance Fraud case in court in California. During her campaign for her New York Senate Seat, Hillary Clinton, asked a man named Peter Paul do a fundraising event for her. It took place in Hollywood California, and involved celebrity performers like Cher, and celebity guests like Brad Pitt, and Jennifer Aniston. The funraising event raised $1.2 million dollars for Hillary Clinton's US Senate campaign. When it was revealed in the mainstream press a short time after the event, that Peter Paul, Hillary's fundraiser, had a crIminal background, Hillary lied about knowing him, or receiving $1.2 millions in campaign financing from him. She also filed documents with the FEC, and did not report the $1.2 million dollars she had received from (Peter Paul), the fundraiser, THIS IS A FELONY CRIME.
VIDEO evidence, and PHONE CALL evidence, as well as LETTERS, show cleary, and with no doubt, that Hillary Clinton knew Peter Paul, and had asked him to organize the Hollywood Fundraiser.
(There is a YOUTUBE VIDEO OF Peter Paul showing this evidence of his involvement with Hillary Clinton as weLl as reveailing that he has cheques, and invoices specifically related to the fundraiser for from Hillary Clinton.
The YOUTUBE video is called: "THE SHOCKING VIDEO HILLARY DOES NOT WANT YOU TO SEE"
This YOUTUBE VIDEO shows the evidence Peter Paul plans to present in the Superior Court of California, case #BC304174

GOOGLE: HILLARY AND PETER PAUL TO FIND THE BACKSTORY,
AND MOST IMPORTANTLY WATCH THE YOUTUBE VIDEO TITLED: "THE SHOCKING VIDEO HILLARY DOES NOT WANT YOUR TO SEE".

SOMEHOW THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA HAS DECIDED NOT TO TELL THE WHOLE TRUTH ABOUT HILLARY
CLINTON!! WHY IS THAT? WHY ARE THEY NOT REPORTING THAT SHE IS A DEFENDNT IN A FRAUD CASE CONCERNING A $1.2 MILLION DOLLAR FUNDRAISER, SHE HAD FOR HER U.S SENATE CAMPAIGN.

I ASK THAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE BE TOLD THE TRUTH, AND THE WHOLE TRUTH ABOUT THE FRAUD CASE CONCERNING HILLARY CLINTON, WHICH IS PENDING IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES. (CASE # BC304174)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA WEBSITE ADDRESS: www.lasuperiorcourt.org/CIVILCASESUMMARY/INDEX.ASP
ENTER CASE # BC304174

THERE YOU WILL SEE THE FRAUD CASE PENDING INWHICH HILLARY CLINTON IS A DEFENDANT.

THE PLAINTIFF IN THE CASE IS: PETER PAUL


Posted by: Denise | March 2, 2008 2:43 PM

Copy cat Obama had to return with almost the same add ,but of course has to bring up Iraq.Dosnt Obama know how to bring up anything original himself. Seems he has to agree with Hillary at the debates ,and use everyone elses speeches.What a great canadate for President.Give a break. He is nothing but smooth talk and a hypocryt. It dont take much for Obama to sell the young as if they were a product. I feel real sorry for this country if he makes it to office.No one has even got the real facts on this guy.I know the facts and this country will be in the worst shape it has ever been.American people are very naive voting for someone they dont know about.Atleast I know Hillary is Red,White ,and Blue all through. America dont want the facts ,just hopes and dreams. Be real. concerned Viet nam Vet

Posted by: gjennings_55 | March 2, 2008 4:08 PM

You Clinton slammers and accussers will be damn sorry if your God Obama makes office. The truth on this guy you will find out,when our country falls.All you Obama dreamers are just what you are dreamers and hopers.You knock the only one that can help this country.If he makes it to office, you might just as well put your heads between your legs and kiss your ----- good-bye. concerned viet nam vet

Posted by: gjennings_55 | March 2, 2008 4:49 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 

© 2007 The Washington Post Company