SNL or The Red Phone Ad: Which TV Display Turned the Tide for Hillary Clinton?

I hope that legions of voters in Ohio and Texas caught the last two SNL skits featuring a Clinton-loving media and decided to teach us a lesson.

Because the alternative scenario -- that Clinton's fear mongering and negativity helped her pull out another close win in big states -- does not bode well for the rest of this primary season, or the general election.

Obama seems to have counted on a flood of generally positive coverage in days leading to important elections to help him reach voters. This time, it worked in reverse: big-time journalists, particularly stung by satires on Saturday Night Live needling them for saying too many nice things about Obama, decided to get tough.

But I was struck by the example cited by Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz in his piece on an exchange with ABC News reporter Jake Tapper which could "mark the end of a long period in which the media has gone easy" on Obama: "Tapper's litany: "That you didn't put your hand over your heart during the national anthem, that you no longer wear an American flag on your lapel pin, that you met with some former members of the Weather Underground, and now they are questioning your wife's comments when she said she hasn't been proud of the U.S. until just recently."

So, regurgitating old controversies about wearing flag pins and where his hand sits during the national anthem is big media getting tough on Obama?

What I saw that was more substantive, was an interesting piece on Obama's ties to indicted political player Tony Rezko on CBS News, Chicago reporters demanding more access to the candidate for their own Rezko stories, and some hard looks at his legislative record. But none of this work really unearthed new questions about his abilities or background, which leads me to a niggling question:

Amid all this talk about the media going easy on Obama, what kind of coverage do people want? Is it harping on issues which aren't really substantive? Is it talk about flag pins and ceremonial dress? The Project for Excellence in Journalism documented the increase in incisive coverage about Obama here.

Above all, I hope Democratic voters didn't let the negativity and fear mongering of recent days push them into voting decisions (Clinton's "red phone" ad was a textbook scare tactic aimed right at soccer moms concerned about national security).

Because we saw during the last presidential election how well choices made in fear actually turn out.

Comments

[sandiaview]

No more SNL for me. Their bias and endorsement did it for me. Hillary may be good for NY and SNL but she will be bad fo U.S.

[Herrington]

It wasn't 3 Am or SNL. It was Rush Limbuagh. Without the 8% of Clintons total primary vote that was cast by Republicans, Clinton would have lost Texas.

The polls did swing a few points toward Clinton on the eve of the primary. Indications are the late deciders favored Clinton about 60/40. There is your 3 AM/SNL effect. It probably would not have mattered had not Republicans crossed over and voted for Clinton. She would have lost Texas and the spin would be survival instead of momentum. She knows this, and the bald faced liar that she is, has let it slide under the radar. The press has been clueless, but what else is new. Let talk about Britney.

Thanks Rush. Republicans sure know how to WIN.

[BOBERT24]

maybe reporters and tv pundits and taking head should have to report who they are supporting similiar to how stock analysts now have to report if they own a stock that they are recommending on air or in print.. that would certainly root out the rampant partianship that is on display today..from watching george stephanolpous let howard wolfson repeatedly ask questions of david axelrod last sunday on this week , i was beginning to wonder if he was going to let wolfson host the show.. the Clinton News Network is more subtle about it but it has become more obvious with their election night coverage bias.. Tapper is merely Britt Hume in disquise when he worked for ABC.......Fox is Fox.. at least we all how biased they are........MSNBC is pro obama .....

the only real objective news source left might by PBS ....with Jim Lehrer and Charlie Rose......

[jqcitizen]

Mushroom shaped clouds and red phones are old worn out political ads made for TV.

The real (non-fiction) demonstration of 'Leadership' by a President was Sept.11, 2001.
Andrew Card personally advising Pres. Bush that the nation IS under attack. This was not a phone ringing at 3;00am. This was the real deal. The rest is the legacy of this 'Decider'. Total failure.

Candidate McCain do not embrace this same crowd that defamed you in 2000. -Try something different. Like telling the truth about these counterfeits..

[Je111]

Media loves this fight. When Hillary ahead, they attack Hillary to make the race interesting so that they have topics to talk about. Now they are doing the other way around. But voters have gotten disservice in the process. What's really at stakes? The troubling future. The media don't like to talk about trillions of debt, hundreds of billions of deficits every year, going broke social security, growing mortgage, inflation, recession troubles. Who has noticed the recent food and gas price lately? Everybody has weak points. But the most important thing is, Hillary is best hand to deal with the growing trouble this country facing. She has experience with Bill who turned this country around from trouble before, which is no simple luck like attackers like you to believe. Citizens are the stakes holders of the country, much like stock holders of a company. No stock holder will vote for a candidate as CEO just on the promise of hope to change for a company. Yet many dems are doing just that, and the media saying those are well educated.. ??!! They must be terrible investors.

[Emmaboverry]

Please form your own questions and circulate to MSM hosts or copy these:

Dear Mr. Russert,

Questions I hope you and other respected journalists will ask of Senator Clinton as well as research yourself:

1) Please give specific examples of your participation in a) Peace talks in Northern Ireland b) the Kosovo refugee crisis--how did you influence the outcomes of these events? In what official capacity did you act at these events and what specific actions did you take, decisions did you participate in that can help Americans assess your foreign policy /national security experience and expertise over and beyond that of Senator Obama's?

2) How does your speech on women's rights in China substantiate your claim to foreign policy experience or your readiness to respond with sound judgment to an international
crisis as you suggest in your red phone ad?

3) Please give us examples of your work on the Senate Armed Services Committee and instances of how your superior judgment was tested and employed in that work.

4) What do you say to those who argue that in the most crucial test of judgment bearing on your potential to exercise sound judgment on foreign policy and in behalf of national security interests, you failed to demonstrate
a thorough enough consideration of all the evidence at hand so as to come to a decision you, and many other Americans, would not later regret-i.e. your vote to authorize the president to go to war with Iraq?

[coolrepublica]

Here is the bottom line. Hillary in Texas and Ohio was outspent 3 to 1. 3 to 1. The teamsters were behind OBama and most unions and she still won. She did not just beat him, she whipped him silly.

[LiarLiarIraqsOnFire]

I Blame Canada! http://youtube.com/watch?v=ds07XDaKhC4

[Clinton]

What about the ditto-heads, what effect did they have?

[ebbtide]

I don't think the tide has turned for Hillary and Bill. She needed the big win in Texas and won by three per cent and as is being reportedf, did not get the delagates necessary to knock Obama our. although we do not have the full reports yet.

[Squawkencluck]

The SNL effect would not have been direct. The red phone BS, maybe. Still, you overplay the effectiveness of fearmongering in OH and TX in this article. She lost her point spread by huge numbers. She was supposed to win OH by twenty and TX by nearly as much. Yet, while trumping up claims of "Naftagate" over a conversation that happened weeks before the debates and trying to scare the public with ominous narration and fake news radio spots her lead diminished by half in OH and to less than 3% in TX. I have to agree with Bill Clinton on this one, you have to vote for the candidate that is offering the positive message. Many more people followed that advice than ran back to the candidate that can't read National Intelligence Estimates but can posture for the press about her National Security vettedness. Yawn. The Clinton campaign continues to show itself to be weak, very very very weak, on substance.

[MPeter]

The Clinton campaign today maintained that "the vetting of Barack Obama has just begun." The truth is, more than a year into this campaign, some very simple vetting of Hillary Clinton has yet to start.

In the face of her unwillingness to release her tax returns, Hillary Clinton has made the false case in this campaign that she is more electable because she has been fully vetted. When it comes to her personal finances, Senator Clinton"s refusal to release her taxes returns denies the media and the American people the opportunity to even begin that process. Though her campaign has tried to kick the issue down the road, Democratic voters deserve to know, right now, why it is she is hiding the information in her tax returns from last year.

The Clinton campaign has said that they have released copious amounts of financial information but there are many questions about their private dealings that could be answered in their tax returns but not in the information that is currently available. For example, here are eight pieces of information that could be learned from her tax returns, the accompanying schedules, and attachments:

Effective tax rate " including whether or not any tax shelters were used to reduce it
Amount of income for spouses by source
Amount of stock gains and losses
Gross income for the couple
Amount earned from stock dividends
Amount of household employment taxes paid
Personal exemptions taken
Charitable contributions made
Senator Clinton has also claimed that she is too "busy" to release her tax returns. Given the fact she is able to loan her campaign $5 million, you would think the Clintons would be able to hire an accountant. The reality is that she wants to keep this information hidden from voters. The people of Wyoming, Mississippi, Pennsylvania and the rest of the country should wonder why.



The Clintons" record on releasing tax returns:



FEBRUARY 2008: Clinton Reiterated That She Would Not Release Her Tax Records Until She Is The Nominee

[MPeter]

Still counting votes in Texas
by kos
Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:28:13 PM PST
Texas.

Caucuses

Obama 56
Clinton 44



It's looking more and more like Obama will officially win Texas.

Obama could pick up a net gain of three delegates, after all the dust settles.

Here"s how Dem officials say that"s possible:

Clinton won the popular vote, and could pick up as many as four delegates from that.

Obama appears to be winning the caucus voting on delegates, and could pick up as many as seven delegates there.

If that holds true, Obama would end up with three more Texas delegates than Clinton.

Obama came out of TX looking cleaner, smelling better and with a lead after the caucusses. So do not let the Clinton spin and biased MSM fool you. We are on a roll.

[IneptitudePrideB4Fall]

I wish someone had replied to the 'red phone ad" by asking "which of our policies have caused so many people hate us? Which actions have led us now to fear for our safety in the night? Which politicians have made those decisions which have caused us to now be very much less safe?"

[mightbesane]

What is appropriate is for the media to carefully scrutinize the records of the candidates. Although Deggans is correct in saying that lapel pins and hands over hearts don't count as a high level of scrutiny, there are other questions that should be asked and, in my hearing, have not been answered.

It's my understanding that Hillary and Obama have voted exactly the same way as regards funding for the Iraq war. Edwards had it right - make GWB veto bill after bill after bill if you oppose the war with more than rhetoric.

I hear occasional talk of many votes of 'Present' by Obama in Illinois and/or the Senate, as well as a number of skipped votes on controversial issues. Google tells me that's true. How important were the issues involved and how calculatingly politically motivated were those votes? Do they represent New Politics or old-style CYA?

I will be voting in the Pennsylvania primary. I haven't yet made up my mind. I feel that I know Hillary pretty well. I'd sure like to feel the same about Obama but, when you cut through to these kind of issues...

[Vishous]

Here's a little background on voting "Present" in Illinois legislature. It is actually a tactic, as passing a bill requires a constitutional majority.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F03E6D7133DF935A25751C0A96E9C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print
The fact is that the attacks on him from a Pro-Choice perspective are ridiculous. He has a 100% rating from both NARAL and Planned Parenthood.

[mightbesane]

So it IS CYA - or at least old politics rather than a new paradigm. Thanks for clarifying that.

[hopeless277]

There's not an ounce of courage in this whole goddamned country any more. We're just a bunch of children too scared to even go outside. We get what we deserve, McCain 2008.

[Clinton]

That is a fact, mon frere. And it's all out there for the world to see, what a disgrace, eh?

[grendl]

I would only add, the red phone ads brilliance was not just in scaring soccer moms about issues of national security, it also played into their deepest fears regarding home invasion.

Al Qaeda doesn't attack at "3:00 a.m." in the morning. Who does?

Why the criminal element of this country of course. That was the insidious linkage and brilliance of that commercial, the tie between a red phone call about some international terrorist organization, or enemy nations attack upon this country, and home invasion, something which strikes a much more immediate, and tangible fear in the hearts of this country's family's.

Terrorism to us is still something we saw on television, at least those not directly affected by that tragic day on 9/11. But crime, break ins, rape, robbery, child molestation, that's something far more of us have at if not direct contact than peripheral experience with.

It was a brilliant brilliant commercial. Worthy of the swiftboaters, and the Michael Dukakis stunt, but far stealthier in its ability to disguise the racist undercurrent of the ad.

It linked a breach of national security, with a breach of home security. And the people who voted yesterday in those all important states proved that whichever one scared them, a Muslim terrorist, or a criminal crawling through their child's bedroom window, they didn't want Barack Obama in charge.

[gerontion72]

Neither. The racist, globalist media turned the tide. Not to mention the spate of New York-based media outlets that handed her precious airtime in the past few days (SNL, The Daily Show, for example).

Face it, they will never let an African American become president. Never.

[pithy]

Oh, horse puckey!

It was the media, for sure - not the phone ad - but not because the media won't "allow" us to elect an African American!

The MSM thrives on drama - so they invent the concept that she's down and out, and they hammer on it so often, the Americans who haven't voted feel like "damn, THEY say it's over, but I'm not letting them decide for me."

If I heard right, 27-million people have voted so far - and the difference between the two is slightly over 3,000 votes. C'mon, folks - no matter which one gets in, we win - UNLESS we let the MSM media convince us we're tearing each other's throats out.

Both candidates are smart, conscientious, compassionate and 1000-percent better that either GWB or John McDeath.

[lynnn]

The media, let's poll them and see if they are more racist or sexist. I bet the media exacts are way more racist then any part of southern Ohio, plus Obama owes them nothing. Bloomberg needs to be offered VP so he can take on the media.