We've had a Red Phone Moment in the 2008 Democratic race for President. The New York Daily News has the You Tube versions of both Hillary Clinton's Red Phone Ad released late last week and Barack Obama's response.
A quiet home, a sleeping family, an ominous voice talks about a phone call signalling trouble.
Who do you want to answer it? The idea is scare the people witless. Karl Rove is probably chuckling thinking his influence has taken over the Democrats.
But this ad has its real roots in the 1964 Lyndon Johnson daisy ad against Barry Goldwater in which a shot of little girl picking the petals of a daisy is followed by the mushroom cloud of a nuclear explosion. The message (unspoken) was: "Do you want that nutcake to have his finger on the nuclear trigger?" Walter Mondale ran a famous red phone ad with the same message against Gary Hart in 1984.
Politico has a story on how the Texas primary could influence the general election. If Clinton's ad works and she wins Texas (but Obama is ultimately the nominee) the Republican 527 groups are going to go all out trying to scare people.
View the dualing ads here. Also, one of the keysfor Obama is how fast hs campaign has beenable to respond. The Harball technique of, "Leave No Shot Unanwered," was followed within the 24-hour news cycle.
You make the call. Is this type of politicl ad effective?
_______________
On the issue of foreign relations, it is interesting to note that of our recent Presidents, not many have had prior job experience:
George W. Bush (No; Gov. of TX)
Bill Clinton (No; Gov. of AK)
George HW Bush (Yes; VP, Ambassador to UN, Member of House of Reps)
Ronald Reagan (No; Gov. of CA)
Jimmy Carter (No; Gov. of GA)
___________________
We are coming off of an era in which voters have looked for Chief Executive experience. Before Carter, one has to go all the way back to FDR to find no prior foreign policy experience. (Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, Ike and Truman all had it). Ironically, FDR was rated No. 1 in the International Relations category of a C-Span survey of Presidential leadership
8 comments:
The question of this campaign is Experience. In America, No presidential candidate since long ago has had actual foreign policy experience. Nixon was a senator and a VP, not a powerful force. He was on HUAC, which has nothing to do with foreign policy experience. When asked to name a major policy initiative that Nixon participated in, Eisenhower said "give me about two weeks then maybe I can tell you". Truman, had none until he was President. He didn't even know he was president until a day after FDR died. Eisenhower was a General. Yes, he may have delt with other generals, but in reality, they were all under his command, and he had no experience with real IR. Lyndon Johnson, was a senator and a VP, who resided over the Cuban missile crisis. He learned a lot from JFK, but had no true experience. Jimmy Carter, a farmer/governor from GA. Reagan had a tumultous relationship with the USSR until Gorbachev. Clinton, small state governor. Bush, governor of texas. FDR was secretary of the Navy.One man who was truly experienced in IR was Bill Richardson. But he dropped out. Hillary Clinton has made state visits with her husband. As her chief strategist stated, her true "Red Phone moment" was in 2003. She didn't even read the report. Barack Obama has had no real red phone moment. That ad was nothing better than fearmongering, just like Johnson's add was in 64. Pathetic. The question of this Race is the ability to lead. The ability to get the American people to stand, and say "I want to be part of this". It's the question of the Leader President, like Reagan, versus the nuts and bolts President like Wilson. In the history of the United States, there have only been 5 true Presidents, who lead and were the nuts and bolts: George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Monroe, Abraham Lincoln, and Franklin Roosevelt. They're a rare gem. The question is, is Barack that man? or is McCain that man? The american people will decide.
No doubt about it: Hillary's desperate. Nobody trusts Hillary to deal effectively with crises. Like Alex said, the American people will decide on this.
It's a legitimate question. Who do we want to answer the phone in case of an emergency? The trouble is, of course, in the criteria people use to determine their answer. And I don't think that people will automatically say Hillary because she has more experience in federal politics and foreign policy. It's more logical to look at the patterns that develop when accessing a candidate's body of work; the extent of that body of work is a less significant question. What really matters in a time of crises is a person's core beliefs, and those will manifest themselves in a candidate's track record no matter how long that track record may be.
The argument Hillary is using could be likened to a Senior with a D average claiming that they are a better student than a Freshmen with an A average simply because they've been at it longer. What matters most is what you've done in the past, not how long you've been doing it. But I for one am still a fan of the ad. It reminded that I'd rather have John McCain pick up the phone.
That last sentence should read "it reminded me that I'd rather have John McCain pick up the phone."
When we talked about this in class, a lot of people were angry that Hillary would sink so low as to put out a message intended to scare people. Like Jeremy pointed out, it addresses a very legitimate question - who DO you want to answer that phone call? I think Hillary needed to address this issue because of the way the media has portrayed her. I've seen numerous ads that degrade Hillary because of her sex (who hasn't heard at least one joke about the tears or the pantsuits?). Typically, people would piture a man answering that phone call. I think it benefitted Hillary to remind people that yes, she can protect the country too and that yes, she has actually had experience in foreign policy. Jeremy again brings up a good point when he talks about experience versus the ability to handle a crisis, but in many cases, experience will make a difference. I think Hillary was very smart in releasing this ad to remind people that yes, she can fill the role of Protector for the country.
When we talked about this in class, a lot of people were angry that Hillary would sink so low as to put out a message intended to scare people. Like Jeremy pointed out, it addresses a very legitimate question - who DO you want to answer that phone call? I think Hillary needed to address this issue because of the way the media has portrayed her. I've seen numerous ads that degrade Hillary because of her sex (who hasn't heard at least one joke about the tears or the pantsuits?). Typically, people would piture a man answering that phone call. I think it benefitted Hillary to remind people that yes, she can protect the country too and that yes, she has actually had experience in foreign policy. Jeremy again brings up a good point when he talks about experience versus the ability to handle a crisis, but in many cases, experience will make a difference. I think Hillary was very smart in releasing this ad to remind people that yes, she can fill the role of Protector for the country.
oops sorry for 2 (now 3) posts!
I agree with Jean and Jeremy on this one. I think that the question was legitimate and it needed to be put out there for the American people to think about. However, I saw the ad today and did not think it was the best way to pose this question.
Post a Comment