Clinton Goes Nuclear; Obama Camp Fires Back

Subscribe to this blog's feed

« Previous | Main | Next »

Clinton Goes Nuclear; Obama Camp Fires Back

February 29, 2008 8:38 AM

ABC News' David Wright, Sunlen Miller, Andy Fies, Eloise Harper, Kate Snow & Nitya Venkataraman Report: Closing in on the March 4 contests, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., debuted a campaign ad on Friday with ominous undertones.

"It's 3:00am and your children are asleep," a voice over says in the ad entitled "Children". "There's a phone in the White House, and it's ringing. Something is happening in the world. Your vote will decide who answers that call."

"Whether someone knows the world's leaders, knows the military, someone tested and ready to lead. It's 3am and your children are safe and asleep. Who do you want answering the phone?" the ad concludes.

Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., pushed back hard against the new ad, which ABC News' George Stephanopoulos described as "the nuclear option" on Friday's "Good Morning America".

Addressing a group of veterans at an American Legion post in Houston, Obama said: "We've seen these ads before. They're the kind that play on peoples' fears to scare up votes."

The tone of the ad -- which echoes the infamous Daisy Ad from the 1964 Johnson-Goldwater presidential race and the red phone ad former Vice President Walter Mondale ran against Gary Hart in their '84 race for the Democratic nomination -- indicates that the Clinton campaign is pulling out the all the stops leading into the Ohio and Texas primaries.

Mondale's ad, where a red phone rang threateningly in the middle of the night while a voiceover asked voters what kind of leader they wanted to "answer that phone", ultimately worked in his favor: Mondale defeated Hart and secured the party nomination, though he lost in November to Ronald Reagan.

"The question is not about picking up the phone," Obama said. "The question is: what kind of judgment will you make when you answer? We've had a 'red phone moment'. It was the decision to invade Iraq. And Senator Clinton gave the wrong answer. George Bush gave the wrong answer. John McCain gave the wrong answer."

The Clinton campaign rejected any comparison to the LBJ "Daisy Ad" saying Clinton's ad was a "positive ad" that featured "very soft images" and was not at all like the Johnson ad.

Clinton communications director Howard Wolfson responded to Obama's accusations of campaign scare tactics by saying, "It is an absolute insult to voters to suggest that a discussion of national security constitutes fear mongering."

"It's a legitimate question," Wolfson said of the "Who do you want answering the phone" ending note of Clinton's ad, pointing out that Obama had agreed on that point in a Friday morning speech at the American Legion. (In fact, Obama did say it was a "legitimate question" quickly following to clarify "the question is not about picking up the phone, the question is 'what kind of judgment will you exercise when you pick up that phone? In fact, we have had a red phone moment: it was the decision to invade Iraq. Sen Clinton gave the wrong answer.")

It seems Roy Spence, the creator of Mondale's red phone ad, borrowed from his own portfolio in creating Clinton's latest ad. Spence joined the New York senator's presidential campaign after New Hampshire.

The Obama campaign also set aside the traditional game of lowering expectations ahead of Tuesday's vote and instead predicted doom and gloom for Camp Clinton.

"They're going to fail and fail miserably," campaign manager David Plouffe told reporters on a conference call.

The Obama campaign says, given the closeness of the polls in Ohio and Texas, it's unlikely Clinton will be able to close the gap among pledged delegates.

According to the Obama campaign math, if Clinton fails to win both states by a comfortable margin -- 10 points or more -- Clinton would need to win 74% of the 611 remaining delegates in order to close the gap.

Officials with the Clinton campaign dispute the Obama math, noting that this scenario does not take into account superdelegates, party leaders who are free to vote for whomever they like.

Clinton officials accuse the Obama campaign of setting an "artificial standard," arguing that neither candidate will reach the requisite number of pledged delegates to secure the nomination without the help of superdelegates.

February 29, 2008 in Bush, George W., Kucinich, Dennis, Tancredo, Tom | Permalink | User Comments (1175)

User Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Hillary is BETTER versed in foreign policy. Period. Go Hillary!

Posted by: DMK | Feb 29, 2008 9:30:06 AM

hilary is absolutely correct...

we are getting ready to nominate a president not some kind of one year us senator and two senator to the nation's highest office..

every person in my own family has more qualifications to be president than doest Obama and this is not a racist nor smearing nor untrue remark...

many many of us in this business of goverment and law had to work and work and truly sacrifice to become known as
true "agents of change" and hilary has done the necessary heavy lifting in her life to gain in this context this kind of true contemplation...

Obama only has a chance of winning texas if all those Karl Rove republicans who love to hate the clintons and those false prophets in
the national media [ug, remember a 'granite ending for the clintons in
rhode island ala EVERY pundit and major news paper in the USA including the USA!}

its so true...its time we recognize the truth about this freshman Senator from Illinois...his a nice, intellingent guy and has a future...
but he's not going to be answering that phone if my very important part of the State of Ohio has anything to do with this choice...

Posted by: minneapolis falling | Feb 29, 2008 9:30:08 AM

And Hillary has more experience because she was "First Lady"? She is delusional and a lunatic, and needs to be defeated at any costs!!!

Posted by: Britt | Feb 29, 2008 9:30:20 AM

Well, the Republicans won in 2002 and Bush fearmongered his way to a win in 2004. I guess Hillary is calling Karl Rove for advice now.

Posted by: TSnow27604 | Feb 29, 2008 9:30:31 AM

Good ad Hillary! It is sad that people can not see through Obama. Not matter what comes out on Obama, his supporters will defend him to the end. This the same thing that happen with Bush. Supporters agreed with him about everything he said and did and look what kind of mess he got us in. It appears that people want to live in an illusion rather than in reality--the reality that Obama is all talk!! I want the security of a real leader in the White House! Hillary 08

Posted by: Df123 | Feb 29, 2008 9:31:27 AM

Posted by: Df123 | Feb 29, 2008 9:31:34 AM

I keep hearing about Hillary's expreience. Is she counting Bill's years in office as her experience? Just because she was in the Whote House does not mean that she is the most-qualified to be president. She only has two years on Obama in the Senate. John McCain is clearly the most experienced between all three candidates.
What she knows is the pressure of being Commander-in-Chief.

Posted by: SharonP | Feb 29, 2008 9:31:35 AM

maybe she is insinuating that Bill will be answering the phone.. i mean, he's the one who actually has the experience.. i'll wait until i see her White House records.. then we'll see what her "experience" is.. to me, she has no more experience than Obama.

Posted by: Jeff | Feb 29, 2008 9:31:39 AM

Hillary did not need to tell us this. Its not new. We are all aware. Barack Obama has NO foreign political experience other than playing dress up in his biological fathers native clothing (talibanish clothing). Other than that, we all know what a huge mistake electing obama into the white house will be. Jimmy Carter rides again. One big mistake. Obamaites do not care about our country, they only care about getting the con man elected even if deep inside they have doubts. This may be a little harsh but its all true.

Posted by: for what its worth | Feb 29, 2008 9:31:49 AM

Hey Hillary,

the more you lash out at this great fellow democrat, the MORE you lose me. By the way, having a great hand-to-chin camera pose DOES NOT make you appear MORE qualified... just more rehearsed and PHONY.

Posted by: RW | Feb 29, 2008 9:33:12 AM

Hillary wants to be president so bad that it is almost obscene. I think she is obsessed with the notion that only becoming President would justify sticking with slick willy over the years. Unlike most other American women leaders, Hillary did not climb the political ladder of hard knocks to reach her current position as Senator. She started on top because her husband was President. She is a smart lady but she doesn't understand that she is not preordained to be a leader and that she has to win the nomination because the people really feel she would be the best leader and also someone they would like to follow. As she sees that slip away, she does not have the "experience" of a real veteren from the bottom up politician to take the tough times in stride.

Posted by: Beth | Feb 29, 2008 9:34:46 AM

this is a fair question to ask..."Who do you want answering the phone?" i don't understand why folks are upset about it can calling this cheap or cowardly? its a fair question to ask yourself before you vote, regardless of which candidate you support. I would hope that your answer to that question is strongly aligned to the candidate you are supporting.

Posted by: terry | Feb 29, 2008 9:34:48 AM

Bill E, it certainly looks like Obama firmly knew what to do on the day WHEN THE PHONE RANG & someone questioned whether to throw America's precious lives and 100s of billions of dollars behind a mis-guided and arrogant war! HILLARY answered the phone & said "now whose this, oh sorry I'M STILL A BIT ASLEEP, oh Mr. Bush, sure...why not, sounds like a plan...kill 50 thousand innocent men, women & children in Irag + 4200 of our own & burn billions of dollars, sure I trust you-let's go with that...but Georgey I had a very long day-I'm getting back in bed...chow-see ya in the morning!"

Posted by: jay | Feb 29, 2008 9:35:00 AM

If Americans want someone so low and deceitful as Hillary Clinton as their President than they need to get professional help. The Clintons have been sneaky and unprofessional for years. Why isn't the press talking about her years in the White House with all her fraudulent acts such as Whitewater, her tax evasion scam, travelgate etc.? And people find her honest&ethical? Boy do I feel sorry for them.

Posted by: Dan A | Feb 29, 2008 9:35:12 AM

Again ~ copying from something that already didnt work.... we need some one NEW in the WHITE HOUSE. Obviously Hillary cant be original or she wouldnt be trying to copy other peoples stuff.
Been there done that.

Posted by: JT | Feb 29, 2008 9:36:44 AM

I want someone answering the phone that is an excellent communicator. I want someone that isn't polarizing.

Posted by: Eric | Feb 29, 2008 9:36:52 AM

This is just more from a campaign on it's last leg. These negative, fearmongering attacks have only bckfired everytime. HRC, keep paying those consultants big bucks for no results. Now that is the leader we want. You had a three week head start in both TX & OH. You held double digit leads in both until you had competetion. Now look at the numbers. Just desperation but the danger is that she will leave scorched eath in her path. RNC is loving this, Dean needs to get this campaign on the high road.

Posted by: Lou | Feb 29, 2008 9:37:01 AM

If he name was Hilliary Rodham, she wouldn't have a chance. What has Hilliary RODHAM, done for this country aside from her husband that warrants election? Does this mean that Eleanor Roosevelt should of been acting president after the death of FDR. Hell, she was first lady longer; If it counts as executive experience in all? And your worried about what Obama would do in the Wite House? I think the fact that Hilliary surrounds herself with the same old relics from her husband's staff shows that she has no NEW ideas, and nothing new to offer the country. 20th century answers to 21st century questions do not make you the most qualified in today's world. It brings up the fact of why we chose a democracy (and a republic) over a monarchy such as England. Is it really Democracy with a Bush I, Clinton I, Bush II, Clinton II??? What's next Jeb in 2016? Or perhaps Marvin Bush? (You know the one who was in charge of security for the World Trade Center on 911... How 'bout we elect HIM in 2016? I mean he's a BUSH, he's qualified? NOT!!!) Come on folks, just a little objective thinking will do the trick.

Posted by: cba | Feb 29, 2008 9:38:03 AM

I have now seen it all from this woman. I hope she loses everything from this point on. This is disgusting and stupid to prey on our minds like this.

Posted by: Jim Rod | Feb 29, 2008 9:38:09 AM

Bill Elliot - Who's being Naive? I don't want someone picking up that phone that has a tendency to exhibit multiple personalities and you don't know which one is going to pick up the phone. What ever it is you're smoking, I want some. :)

Posted by: Soulodious` | Feb 29, 2008 9:38:16 AM

Post a comment