Clinton's New Ad Is Plea for Relevance

While many Democrats openly questions whether Clinton has any path to reach the nomination, her campaign has already moved on the primary and is setting up attacks on John McCain. It released today what is the first contrast ad of the 2008 general election! Few would have expected the first shot to come from Hillary, and that element of surprise is clearly something the campaign wanted to play with.

The ad, which you can view here, is a sequel of the 3am ad question used against Obama in the run-up to the Texas and Ohio primaries. This one uses the same pictures but suddenly explains, "this time the crisis is economic" before directly criticizing McCain (the first version of the 3am ad did not mention Obama by name). Here is the beginning of the script:

It's 3 am, and your children are safe and asleep.

But there's a phone ringing in the White House and this time the crisis is economic.

Home foreclosures mounting, markets teetering.

John McCain just said the government shouldn't take any real action on the housing crisis, he'd let the phone keep ringing.

The McCain campaign wasted little time replying, not only with a particularly cruel push-back ("With an ad like that, it's more likely that the call at 3:00 am is, "Senator, you've just lost another superdelegate," said an aide) but also by releasing their very own web ad which they might actually broadcast depending on how widely Clinton's media buy is. McCain's ad takes the very same images Clinton used and replaces the part that attacked him with a script attacking the two Democrats for wanting to respond to the economic crisis by... raising taxes (old attacks never die).

Clinton's rationale for preparing an anti-McCain ad when she barely has enough money contesting against Obama can seem puzzling, but there a number of very clear reasons justifying this move. Clinton wants to stay relevant. With Obama and McCain getting in increasingly routine exchanges, Clinton must be fearing growing at best invisible, at worst a nuisance, as Democrats will want to move on to attacking the Republican nominee.

The ad's primary audience are superdelegates. It's unlikely Clinton will spend that much money airing this spot, but she is relying on earned media to make sure all uncommitted superdelegates hear about it. With this, Clinton is insisting on a few messages:

(1) She is claiming through this ad that not only will she not prove a distraction to the general election campaign, but she will air an attack ad against McCain before the Obama campaign.

(2) Relatedly, Clinton is trying to put to rest criticism that she is putting herself before her party and that she is giving McCain ammunition to use against Obama in the general election. Many people criticized her for this when the original 3am ad was aired, and Clinton wants to take her part in McCain bashing to prove to superdelegates that she does not intend to help McCain win in November.

(3) Clinton wants to show that she is comfortable attacking McCain on economic issues. Democrats are likely to draw on the current economic crisis as much as possible in the coming months, as elections that play out on the socio-economic terrain tend to favor Democrats much more than those that are debated on national security topics. And Clinton considers the economy to be her forte, and she is telling superdelegates that she will be more capable than Obama to exploit what is widely viewed as the area McCain knows the least about.

Comments

[mtuckey]

Well, I support Obama, and I think this is a good ad! As for a plea for relevance, I agree with other posters-- Clinton has proven she is relevant. Whether you support her or not. You have to give her that. She doesn't need this ad to accomplish that. But the democrats do need this ad. They need Clinton to join the team.

[klondiker]

A plea for relevance??

You people act like the liberal media elite is the only important constituency, and if one is not "in" with them, then one is not relevant.

Nearly 12 million people have voted for Sen. Clinton this primary season (not very far from Sen. Obama's numbers) and many more million will vote for her in the coming weeks. Are all these people irrelevant?

[slow2]

klondiker -- Some of us are not exactly sure what the "liberal media elite" are. We average joe voters just don't like liars; thus, the negative numbers for Billary. It's about the sniper fire (lies) and the Impeachment (on the record) and the suck-up to Richard Mellon Scaife (the head of the Arkansas Project - who tried to link Hill to the Foster death -- and now she sucks up to him!).

So, count your votes; but, realize that many voters are disgusted with Hillary and Bill Clinton and their lies and manipulations.

[vincealy]

Agreed , this is the lowest form of politics I have ever seen praticed by Democrats . Sham on the Clintons . In two important test ;the honesty test and the judgement test only two candidates Sen Obama and John Mccain have passed . The tactics employed by the Clintons make me vomit.

[klondiker]

Fair enough. You're entitled to your feelings. But, don't say she's irrelevant. A good half of the electorate doesn't think so, and you can't just dismiss all those millions of people.

[EFC]

Indeed, John McCain is weak on the economy and doesn’t really seem too keen on learning more about it. But, like other Republicans who steadfastly support the fiasco in Iraq, his overriding vulnerability is that support. To say the least, it’s seems counterintuitive that any candidate for president would lead with his chin as McCain has done with his support for the war. There can be no clearer indication of the extent to which the Republican Party is held hostage by its own chutzpah and reflexive arrogance.

Hillary Clinton’s shot at McCain’s apparent lack of economic expertise is quite logical. Not only does it create the illusion that she is the inevitable Democratic presidential nominee, but it attacks McCain in a vulnerable area in which she has shown no weakness. It would be very difficult for Clinton to attack McCain’s stance on the war because, until recently, it was indistinguishable from hers’.

[treadway123]

mccain is far more truethful and honest then Hillary Clinton. And darn that makes me mad, because I'm voteing Demacrate this year. The poor old man can't keep his facts straight, but he don't out right lie like Hillary does. Poor guy does lack economic expertise. And she will use that to make him look dumb. But than that Hillary for you! I just don't know why were talking about clinton after Penn, Wolfson, Jonston and Bill all tied up together and in bed with the columbians?? If that don't cook clintons goose, than Americans just don't give a damned who they put in the white house and I give up hopeing this country will once again become a honest, truethful country!

[oracle99]

The new ad is pathetic. What kind of financial crisis occurs at 3AM? Since her campaign owes money and hasn't paid certain creditors....maybe that's who is calling.

[MikeMD68]

Oh, please...u obamabots never stop do you?

[slow2]

Mikeypoo, people who see liars and understand the lies they tell are not real happy with the Clintons. So, you know, we kind of have to press on -- for the truth will out...

[HansB]

Maybe Obama and Clinton simply agreed to stop doing McCain's work for him, and to save their attacks for him instead of each other.

Or maybe Clinton cannot afford to be seen going after Obama when Obama is going after McCain.

Either way Clinton's ad would not be a plea for relevancy, but a recognition that the Dems have to beat the Republicans and not each other.

[gala1]

I started out thinking I'd vote for whoever the Democrats put up but after having Obama shoved down my throat every day and with all the extraordinary misogyny coming right up to the surface of the Huffington Post, I now know one thing for sure.
I'm not voting for Obama.

What I am going to do is write-in my ballot for Hillary Clinton if she's not on it. Period.


I can't figure out the level of denial in this country . We're in wartime, all of us are financially struggling and America has lost her primacy due to 8years of mismanagement and profiteering.

Now, if you needed a major brain operation would you want to be the very first patient of some nice ambitious young guy who always wanted to be a brain surgeon, would you go to the guy whose career had a high mortality rate or would you go for the doctor who has the best provable track record .

Hillary Clinton was my senator.
I saw with my very own eyes what she can do and how she does it.
Both personally and as a politician she gets things done. And well.


The HuffingtonPost is merely doing Karl Rove's work for him.
But I live in rural America and I'm not hearing much in the way of support for Obama.

This is an election. Put the wrong candidate in and you will lose it.
Again.

GALA

[Hillbug]

Are you honestly going to base your VOTE on some random internet supporters? Are you that petty?

Are you going to ignore the thousands of Americans dying in Iraq, and the economy in complete shambles, heading straight for a recession? All because some people on the internet were mean?

Hillary Clinton IS my senator. I know what she can do, but I support Obama for a number of reasons I'd rather not get into right now.

That being said, if Obama loses the nomination, I will vote for Hillary, despite the fact that I've seen SO many idiotic things said about him -- many being sickingly racist.

Why? Because I know that I'm not voting for Hillary's supporters, I'm voting for HILLARY.

[Dyogenes]

Given the way she's run her campaign, I wouldn't want her running a bake-sale--much less the country.

Both the 3am Redux and the NC/chat ads are pathetic, almost skittish.
She'd be better off investing in her jewelry collection.

[slow2]

Dyogenes -- That's pretty funny; but there's not much demand for 100% virgin vinyl necklaces...

[SonofLiberty1]

Obama is weak on everything and we can't afford a new president without previous
White House experience.

[CanadianforObama]

Gee...that criterion would have eliminated just about every one of your 43 presidents. Want to do a re-think on that?

[MikeMD68]

Nope. No rethink needed...Obama is weak on everything...I mean he cant bowl for squat...a preK girl could have bowled better.

[bossjimgettys]

Nixon and Bush the First both had "previous White House Experience." I seem to recall war, loss of personal liberties and/or inflation/recession occurred under both their watches. FDR and Kennedy had no previous "White House experience" nor did the majority of our elected Presidents, so your point is more than a little idiotic. Should Mamie Eisenhower have run for President because she had "White House experience"? Personally I'd rather vote on personal integrity (Hillary=0), intelligence (a draw with Obama) and the ability to inspire and unite (looks like Obama takes two out of three).

[Lisette]

Obama is strong and your logic eludes me

[JACKSWADE]

Word of wisdom to you Sono...Better to be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt...

[jstock]

All of our presidents, good, bad and ugly, have entered office "without previous White House experience," including Bill Clinton. This is a specious argument. And while I value Hillary's service to our country as First Lady, since when has the ceremonial experience of FL been considered applicable to the presidency? The "35 years of experience" argument doesn't stand up to scrutiny, IMO.

[batspaul]

See, this is what I just don't get about Hillary and her campaign. She's dead right on this issue. She would do more and be better in an economic crisis than McCain. But either she or her advisors have decided to make this valid point using the theme and visuals of an old ad that she already used against Obama, her Democratic rival. The ad has been lampooned everywhere. She tarnishes and confuses her message with the baggage from a previous argument with someone else. No wonder her presumptive winner status evaporated. What are they thinking?!?

[NorVaGal]

I heard it debated on one of the news shows that, due to Clinton's dwindling money reserves, revising this old ad was cheaper than creating a completely new one. Supposedly, they just had to make sure to use different sleeping children, since one of the previous actors is now an Obama supporter.

[HansB]

Doubt it. Airing an ad costs more than making one.

[Antisana]

Daniel, the better take would be, I woke up at 3:00 am and began reviewing the Clinton's tax returns and rolled and cried in disgust after realizing the ultimate bamboozle they played on the American Public.

[AnninCA]

Makes sense to put out this ad.

[PioneerKing]

It is troubling that Sen. Clinton has spent money on an ad against McCain it is pathetic. Sen. Clinton's ad folks need to be sacked.
This latest gimmick to have people submit questions on the internet and Sen. Clinton respond to them on television won't wash. Didn't Sen. Clinton and her staff learn from the failed Hallmark channel air time purchase?
It is also troubling that Sen. Clinton is spending on ineffective ads while shafting her vendors.

[veteran1964]

Just let her waste the rest of her money against McCain. This woman thinks that she is the nominee. I think she is going nuts for sure. She better save that money to go against Obama in N.C. because we have signed up over 15000 new voters in the last month. All for Obama. She better clone herself because we have the machine running here in the mountains and piedmont.
Let her just spend every dime she has left on McCain....That's fine. Both of them are idiots anyway.

[Ash79]

Our economy must be pretty bad if the President is getting an emergency 3 AM call:

"This is the Fed. Hong Kong market has crashed. The brokers and bankers have lost their money gambling at the Wall Street Casino. The Taxpayer's Guarantor Company must protect their right to unjustified bonuses and expensive coke habits!"

[harriscrl3]

Its a good strategy but she should have gone for more ORIGINALITY. Perhaps the people are not sleeping but they are packing because they have to move on account of losing their home and she comes in and stablize things and they are told they can stay in their homes.

Is there any area that Hilary CLinton is weak in. They say Obama has no experience and he is weak in Foreign Policy according to the media. John McCain is weak in the economy as he himself admitted to but what is Hilary's weakness I would venture to guess she has one but I dont media saying anything about it.

Carol

[slow2]

A "sequel" contrast ad? A clever ad that's making Hillary relevant? Is this some kind of cruel joke; that is, a joke on the Billary campaign?

It's a real challenge to be relevant when you've lied to voters. It's more of a challenge to be considered seriously, when you've fawned all over a man who spent millions to defame you and the former president.

Where's the integrity in a recycled red phone ad that was fodder for late night comics? Penn and his staff must be desperate to devise some new strategy, and if a "sequel" contrast ad is the best they could do...bring back another iteration of Bosnia sniper fire.