|
CuriousLord -> Hillary cries 9/11, Obama counters w/ Iraq (3/1/2008 9:55:31 AM)
|
Clinton or Obama safer? Ads go after 'scare' votes
In short:
-Clinton runs an ad about who children would be safer with in the event of a sudden emergency.
-Obama runs a parody, showing that he could've run the same ad but supporting his cause.
-Clinton argues her superior experience will lead to more safety.
-Obama argues that they've both already had a "red phone" moment, in the vote to invade Iraq or not, and cites that Clinton voted for while he voted against.
-Obama calls Clinton's angle here a scare tactic.
-Clinton says people in Texas aren't easily scared.
My thoughts:
Pro Obama:
-Clinton's showing yet more willingness to use dirty tricks to win votes. I'm tired of her manipulative nature.
-Obama's taking a surprisingly high road, showing that Clinton's tricks are just dirty.
Pro Clinton:
-Conservative voters are used to the sorts of things Clinton's doing and many do scare pretty easily. People are also more used to politicians doing this sort of thing; it's more normal. Even if Obama's a better person, Clinton might stand better in a general election.
Points of question:
-Does Clinton actually have that much more experience than Obama?
-If elected, will Clinton pull the same self-serving agenda Bush has?
-If elected, will Obama's sincere approach work in office?
-Will people be taken in by Clinton's political tactics?
quote:
Clinton or Obama safer? Ads go after 'scare' votes -Sun Times
Sen. Hillary Clinton sparked a war of words with rival Sen. Barack Obama by launching a striking new TV spot here that says voters' children would be safer with her answering the "red phone" that could ring at 3 a.m. in the White House with news of a national security threat.
Obama claimed Clinton was using fear to scare up votes with the ad. And by Friday afternoon his campaign had whipped up a copycat ad also showing children asleep in their beds and asking voters who can best keep those children safe if the "red phone" rings in the White House at 3 a.m. The answer in his commercial is: Obama.
In this state with a disproportionate share of veterans and active military, both candidates courted that constituency Friday.
"Sen. Obama says that if we talk about national security in this campaign we're trying to scare people," Clinton told supporters at a rally in Waco surrounded by veterans. "Well I don't think people in Texas scare all that easily."
Obama, talking to veterans in Houston, said, "In fact, we have had a red phone moment. It was the decision to invade Iraq. Sen. Clinton gave the wrong answer. George Bush gave the wrong answer. John McCain gave the wrong answer."
Flush with campaign cash -- Clinton raised $35 million in February and Obama was expected to collect some $50 million -- both candidates are saturating the airwaves with commercials in Texas and Ohio in advance of Tuesday's important primary elections in these delegate-rich states.
Obama's campaign says Clinton needs to win both states by big margins to have any chance of catching up to his lead in delegates to the Democratic National Convention.
Clinton campaign manager Howard Wolfson said a better way to look at Tuesday is that if Obama loses either state, or Vermont or Rhode Island, then that means voters -- who handed Obama the last 11 straight contests -- are starting to have "buyer's remorse."
Clinton mocked Obama's credentials to be commander in chief, saying: "There's a big difference between delivering a speech at an anti-war rally as a state senator and picking up that phone in the White House at 3 a.m. in the morning to deal with an international crisis."
Normally, I hate politics. It's a dirty game in which half the people are ill-informed, arguing with the other half who are also ill-informed. I think I'm driven to concern about this because, for once, there's a candidate who appears to me to be far more honest. It's alien to me to be debating a topic that I may not have all the facts on, but the prospect of having an honest politician's just too rich.
|
|
|
|
