On an untouched point thus far in the discussion... I find it interesting that Mr. Landau finds that progressives are (or should be) above using right wing fear mongering tactics that got the US into it's current predicament.
It implies that being a 'progressive' somehow makes you better than that. It doesn't, as HRC proves. Being a progressive means that you want progressive goals. What you're willing to do to get there is another story entirely.
Of course, then you have to think about people and not just issues (which, if one is to be candid, is what's really what this race is all about). It isn't just what you want to do with your power that matters. It's who you are a person and what kind of methodology you're willing to get you to where you want to be.
Once you've put your people in the neat little boxes as you see them... well then, you have to decide for yourself if person in Box A is someone you can live with being in the Whitehouse.
The Ad
My fundamental belief about the current election is that change in the White House is so important, that once again we should support the Democratic nominee, no matter how egregiously he or she imitates the people that they are hoping to replace. Hillary Clinton's recent campaign approach has put my belief to the test.
The now famous "3:00am" ad is actually a piece of Republican propaganda. First and foremost, it postulates a problem: a nameless crisis that has disturbed your home and our country at 3:00am. Intended association: a looming foreign threat. It invites you to share the fear it wants to create. And then it puts forward a single individual, some sort of magician, who at 3:00am is going to save the day, presumably by some strong, confidant military action somewhere, anywhere, to overcome the nameless fear. The experience being referenced in the ad is the experience to be tough enough to attack, not the experience to accomplish. The entire subtext of the ad is, in my opinion, war-like.
The ad is also designed to create a fictional picture of an all powerful president who holds your personal fate in her hands twenty four hours a day. It is not an invitation to think or reflect on the question of Ms. Clinton's actual experience -- what it really is and what it really means. It is an invitation to descend into a fantasy terror world for which she is portrayed as the only "realistic" solution. Problem: the unknown. Solution: "Strong," " tough" Hillary Clinton.
Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan (for those of who us who remember the "bear in the woods" ad), George Bush (both) and John McCain would all be utterly comfortable with this ad. It is the opposite of what Franklin Roosevelt meant when he told the nation that "...the only thing we have to fear is fear itself."
This ad is also a distraction from a discussion of the problem of the United States' over-reliance on the military, the problem with our continued involvement in a three trillion dollar war that will help to prevent passage of the social programs that Ms. Clinton claims are her priorities, and the problem of the erosion of our constitutional form of government.
Many in the pundit community who know better (and I guess I am trying to be a pundit here) will forgive or approve of the ad because they subscribe to a cynicism that postulates that anything that works is smart. Dan Abrams is on MSNBC saying that exact thing right now. Next we will hear: "Sure the Swift Boaters were creeps, but you really have to hand it to that Karl Rove...he knows what works" -- win at all costs and the ends justify the means.
My belief is that you can't be a progressive and resort to these kinds of right wing propaganda techniques. Bill Clinton's administration floundered much of the time because he was usually the electoral pragmatist, and seldom tried to truly lead the public on any issue that was too challenging. If this kind of television ad is what gets Ms. Clinton elected, we can count on more of the same from her administration in the military sphere, because she is exhibiting the same mindset as the people already in power. Having run on a parody of being a Republican president, if elected, she will find herself forced to govern that way.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
BEWARE ***The WEAPONS of MASS DECEPTION***
WMD's =
NBC, MSNBC - owned by GE
CBS - owned by Westinghouse
CNN - owned by AOL Time Warner
Most of "the Mainstream Media"
THIS ELECTION IS ABOUT - 29 NEW NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS (Big MONEY)
Aka: Dick Cheney's NEXT Big ENERGY MONOPOLY RIPOFF ... ( Plan)....
Whether Cheney's PLAN succeeds ....OR NOT.... is UP to ALL of YOU.
We all know CORPORATE POWER is in control of our government and ROBBING us every way they can. The "NEWS" media is NOW nearly totally under the CONTROL of Powerful CORPORATE Interests.
The Corporate-Controlled "news" media have interlocking Boards of Directors (same member serves on multiple boards) and all of them serve to enrich their CONGLOMERATED Corporate Masters. (*see FAIR website LINK at the end of this post.)
(YOU can HELP Get the Word Out: Please post this NEWS thruout the Blogsphere and in any NEWS media you can find.)
REAL News you won't see on TV:
Obama is the pre-packaged "New & Improved Chocolate Flavor" Presidential candidate being Marketed like a PRODUCT - hyped & PUSHED by GE and its WHOLLY-Owned subsidiaries NBC & MSNBC...along with Westinghouse & its subsidiary CBS...while slamming the Clintons all day every day. (Assisted by...CNN/FOX/ and a lot of newspaper & radio media dependent on advertising $$$.) GE is the 2nd largest corporation on the planet.
Obama is IN with the Nuclear Industry: Excelon Corp of Illinois has been one of his largest contributors from his entry into politics to the present. Excelon is the largest nuke operator on the planet;owns Con-Ed of NY; more nukes in Illinois than any other state.
GE, Westinghouse, Excelon & 3 consortiums of other companies are planning to build 29 new nuclear power plants. Their Wholly-Owned & Wholly Influenced "News" media are selling the Obama Product because Obama is in favor of Nukes.
In 2005 Obama Voted FOR the Cheney Energy Bill (H.R.6) which ENABLED the nuke industry to make its Plans to build 29 new nukes-by Guaranteeing Taxpayer Payback of any nuke loans that default. (No nukes were built for the past 30 years because the banks wouldn't loan the money - too risky)
Obama Voted FOR the Cheney Energy Bill-despite the fact the Congressional Budget Office rated the risk of default on the nuke loans at 50% or greater. (Does that sound like...GOOD...JUDGMENT to You?)
[NY Times has several articles about the nuke plans & a map showing all 29 locations; Wikipedia covers the subject]
Clinton Voted AGAINST the Cheney Energy Bill and said her Energy Plan does not include nuclear.
? "Its about the FUTURE ...... Turn The PAGE" ?
Nope. Its about Turning the PAGE BACK to the PAST: Obsloete 50 yr old nuke power plants-the dirtiest most expensive kind/centrally-controlled MONOPOLY POWER-instead of deploying New, Clean, Green De-Centralized Inexpensive Energy.
An ad campaign has already begun on the TV media to re-package & re-name nuclear power plants as: GREEN & CLEAN -for- everybody too young to remember the 1970's anti-nuke movement and all the Bad News about nuclear energy.
Don't be taken in by the ad campaigns - Google:'nuclear waste dumps' & read about the hundreds of BILLIONS of gallons of nuke waste at the Hanford Washington dump; 14 tons of plutonium stored at Rocky Flats, Colorado; Barnwell, South Carolina; leaking into groundwater and rivers; plutonium released into the air around Denver from 500 instances of fires at Rocky Flats; nuke waste stored ON-SITE at every nuke reactor in America...presenting hundreds of potential "dirty bomb" targets for terrorists.
Is it true that Obama takes No Contributions/ NO MONEY from Registered Federal Lobbyists?
Yes. It's a LawyerSpeak/Trick of: Speaking a Small truth covering up a Big Lie.
Nope, doesn't take money from REGISTERED FEDERAL Lobbyists.
DOES take money from STATE Lobbyists, Not Registered Lobbyists, AND the wives, husbands, law partners,
...of REGISTERED FEDERAL Lobbyists. Gets money from the same big corporate donors as any other candidate.
Obama's campaign finances are involved in the prosecution (by Patrick Fitzgerald) and trial of his friend of 20 years Antoin Rezko. Some of the funds... allegedly...extorted by Rezko went into Obama's campaign coffers.
Curiously, Iraqi Power Plants and fraud are also involved in Rezko's trial. (Google: Obama -Rezko- Alsammarae-Auichi- IRAQ POWER PLANTS). With the Rezko trial looming over his head Obama, in all good conscience, should not have run for the Presidency - given all the unanswered questions about his involvement with Rezko; including Obama's meeting with Rezko and Rezko's friend Iraqi Billionaire Auichi. Obama's LACK of good conscience in running for President - given the very high risk that the Rezko trial will result in the election of a Republican - reveals Obama's lack of good conscience and his lack of any regard for his party, his country, or its people. Obama should withdraw from the race.
At the beginning of this campaign season a large majority of voters were looking forward to electing Clinton. Then Obama stepped in and started the dirty campaigning that has created the DIVISION he so hypocritically decries. Obama played "the race card" so he could win in South Carolina. He was caught red-handed playing that race card-but the media blamed it on Clinton -even though they all knew they were pushing THE BIG LIE..
With nearly ALL "the mainstream media" pimping for Obama & slamming, smearing, and lying about the Clintons-it is truly amazing enough voters have seen thru the Media-Created Obama "movement"-for Clinton to STILL be in the race.
The only way a very small minority can CONTROL a very large Majority is: DIVIDE & CONQUER -Exactly the same Republican Strategy/Deception they have successfully pulled for most of the last century And ALL of this century, so far. . .
GE, the nuke industry/wealthy have hedged their bets & they will get 29 new nukes IF either Obama or McCain is elected.
Ladies & Gentlemen, Dads & Moms buy nothing GE & Westinghouse are selling - not Obama, not a washing machine, a dishwasher, 29 nuke power plants, or a garbage disposer .... because there is no garbage disposer for Radioactive Nuke Waste. Do not allow them to poison the earth and your children anymore.
For further Info see Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting website:
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3258
Stop your picky-poo nit-picking that got a frat-boy like GWBush & his nanny state for the rich elected.
Vote for competence and not another clueless guy. Vote H.Clinton.
Just support Bert. If I blank up, they can impeach me on-the-spot, and I'll have no problem, 'cause I think I have the capacity to let go of the Shiny Thing, if need be. These three? Um, I just don't know.
Plus, I think it'd be a really cool job, and I think it'd be pretty darn funny if I flew by em and snatched this thing right out of their greasy stubby little fingers. Hehehehehe;)
I am a veteran, I support Obama because as a vet I know the ugliness of war, there is no glamour in being in the field, believe me, those that are gun ho are rare and usually dead first. When I was serving I remember the pressure from commanders to never talk to the press, never even think against the commander in chief. So these guys will tow the line, until they come back home, then you'll find them numbing out on a couch with a bottle, or smoking crack, or worse. There have been many great Presidents with no military in their resume. Ronald Reagan is one, does anyone doubt his patriotic legacy? No, not really. McCain is a hero in that he served and bravely met his unkind fate, but dropping bombs on people doesn't really give you the wisdom to be a great military leader. I had a commander who was decorated for saving about 20 men, he was pilot, but he never dropped a bomb on anyone. He was one of the greatest men that I ever met, he loved his soldiers, and he hated war. He got us through with his intelligence and compassion. God Bless that man wherever he is.
Why are we fighting in Iraq? Personally, I really don't have an overwhelming interest in whether Iraqis are happy or not, that is their plight to fight for, not ours. Perhaps those that are for the war in Iraq should go and live there, fight there and die there, especially George Bush, he should retire there, he loves Iraqis so much. Osama Bin Laden is the individual responsible for the 9/11 bombings. As Obama has said, he needs to be brought to justice, now not later. This isn't some world war. We can protect ourselves from these terrorists with the right kind of fighting force and technology, but everyone needs to participate. Bring back the draft and you will see how fast the American people will want out of Iraq. One more point for those in doubt about Obama, I have heard that Colin Powell is going to announce that he would accept a Vice Presidential offer from Obama. Now there goes a soldier.
Over.
hillary is a DLC/Repuke PIG!
hillary is a DLC/Repuke PIG!
hillary is NO Democrat, she is a republican/Repuke shill to draw votes from true Democrats
hillary is a phony... a -plant, a fraud.
Democrats will vote for Obama and dump hillary into liebermann-land.
This ad does not engender fear, except maybe in a 9 year old. It is focused on women voters--getting them to acknowledge the reality that they take care of plenty of crises in life without the aid and help of a big strong man, and it won't be the end of the world if they vote for a woman instead of a man. That's not fear, that is courage.
Now if the ad frightens a guy, that is their problem.
Jon: Thank you so much for expressing our disgust with Hillary's Republican tactics so eloquently.
How are Democrats supposed to change the country if they are relying on Atwater/Rove scare tactics?
Democrats aren't going to change the country. Both parties are owned by Corporate America. They may not be as bad as the republicans but make no mistake about it neither party is going to bite the corporate hand that feeds them.
Obama is not taking any federal lobbyists money. What the media keeps ignoring is Obama's huge sums of campaign dollars are donated by the PUBLIC. The corporate hands that feed Obama is the PUBLIC. Whom is he beholden to? Get your facts straight.
That 'Ad' should be considered False Advertising , if not an admission of impropriety while living in the WH- Answering THE Phone., not the BJ. If she is insinuating she has that expereince- Bill has some 'splainin'" to do. Considering the allegations of their duel Presidency at the time. Is her Goal to discredit her Husband and his legacy More. Not to mention her sudden turn coat postion on his legislation NAFTA. Is that her intended pay back for Monica?
I suggest Ms. rodham Clinton re think the realimplications from her 'Fear Ad". I'm over the fear ans see it's use as pathetic, but an admission of access to information intended only for the ELECTED President's hears, is quite a confession. Tahnks Hillary we'll add it to your ever growing Evidence File.
How sad for America. The once great nation is now quivering with fear. It's 3AM, your children are asleep, and the phone rings. The terrorists are coming! The terrorists are coming! Maybe it was just a wrong number, but you're so scared, you're willing to throw away all hope. The terrorists are coming! The terrorists are coming! You're all so scared, your fears are clouding your judgement. You didn't re-elect Bush because he was doing a heck of a good job. You re-elected him because he preyed on your fears. And it worked. And he won. And it's working again, because you're all so scared. The terrorists are coming! The terrorists are coming! Face it America, if you're going to elect a President based on your fears, if you're going to live your life in fear, the terrorists have already won.
Very amusing the way "educated" and "informed" Obama supporters throw out so many stereotypes when things don't go their way. Have you ever read a post in which a Hillary supporter denigrates any state which Obama won? Yet we read how stupid people are in Texas and Ohio because the majority of them voted for Hillary. It is time that Obama supporters just grow up and realize that the world doesn't revolve around their messiah and that other people are entitled to their opinions.....and they are not "racist", "uneducated", "old" or "stupid" for expressing them. Stop your childish elitism. It makes you sound like spoiled children.
Actually, yes, I have.
You haven't addressed the real issue -- the "3 a.m." ad. Or do you also support the similar Republican fear-mongering propaganda that's been denounced by Democrats the last seven years.
Or, if you can not condemn the ad outright, please explain how Hillary would respond to a hypothetical 3 a.m. phone call any differently than Barack, unless she were to turn to her spouse and say "Honey, it's for you"?
Yes I have. All the time Hillery's campaign and supporters say that the states Obama won "don't matter" Only the big states do. This is how she plans to take the nomination away from the voters by use of super delegate.
Every time I hear this I think that not only does my state not matter to her but my vote doesn't matter either. I don't matter because I am not from NYC or California.
Some of Obama's supporters do Souther bash and this is ignorant but his campaign does not endorse or promote it. Hillery on the other hand endorses and supports the notion.
Put her in the ranks of the other election stealer's. She is no different.
I also feel all the stupid messiah comments insinuate that I am a blind follower and ignorant like many religious right. You are also being elitist and childish.
"a Hillary supporter denigrates any state which Obama won"
Well unless you count South Carolina or any of those other "small" states that don't count, I guess you have a point.
"sound like spoiled children"
Hmm...the press is unfair. Negative campaigning is good for my opponent but unfair to me.
I'm thinking the "elitists have got your number.
Are you kidding? Wolfson and Penn are constantly reminding us that any state Hillary lost does not count. What could be more denigrating? And you are also apparently unable to refute the argument (not opinion, but argument if you can understand the difference) of this post.
I wonder if the Obama supporters should be angry at Hillary for putting the negative rumors out there or the voters for being stupid enough to fall for her tricks? My question is this, if Clinton can hit Obama with these soft jabs and do damage to him, why should I be confident that Obama will be able to withstand 7 months of right and left hooks from the Republicans and the swift boat groups? I am sure this is mild stuff compared to what the GOP and the 527's plan to do to Obama because the republicans have shown they are willing to rip your heart out to win. Clinton paid for that ad to only air in Texas, shouldn't Obama supporters be blaming the MEDIA for repeatedly showing to national TV audiences? You can call me cynical but when have presidential politics ever been clean? If you have a weak stomach you need to stay out of state/national politics because it is a dirty business.
So I guess stealing elections with falsehoods and misleading entendre is ok now. I guess no one should be pissed with the Swift Boaters, or the Supreme Court or Harris of Florida or any of that stuff because its just politics. You know what? I don"t believe for a Goddamned second that Clinton would not be crying like a baby to the press if she got slammed into a loss with negative ads by Obama. Sell it to Ohio.
No, none of that stuff is ok but that doesn't mean it won't keep happening. Right now, I think if she got slammed by negative ads from Obama that would be a gift for her and I think she's trying to bait him into it. I think the Clintons have figured if you can't change the system you might as well learn how to manipulate it.
And isn't this exactly how the Clintons were portrayed in Primary Colors? Winning above everything . . . can't make a difference unless you get elected . . . yada.
BTW, does my responding to Mr. Landau's post put me within two degrees of separation to Bruce?
Actually, the correct quote would be that "race played a part in their decision".
But I understand. Reality is not anywhere as useful as lying hyperbole when you're trying to spread slander.
Attacking the Democrats of Texas and Ohio is no way to win a general election.
Larry Johnson has some personal experience he would like to share with you here:
http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/03/06/obama-and-his-advisors-not-ready-for-prime-time/
Loading comments…
In a candid interview via satellite from China, Olympic...
Update: Keith Olbermann had Rachel Maddow on "Countdown" Tuesday night to celebrate...
UPDATE: A day after Roseanne's blogs from below...
"How honest are we if we tell the truth most of the time &...
Obama's been to Hawaii. We're moving...
I've read the comments. I know what some of you think. Yawn. It's not a story. He's not...
LOS ANGELES — Barack Obama is getting praise from Nashville, courtesy of one...
The New York Times' Kit Seelye is backing up NBC's Andrea Mitchell, who reported on...
Michael Phelps, Michael Phelps, Michael Phelps. With all the play his name gets right now,...
NEW YORK — The suspense didn't quite compare to the identity of "Deep Throat,"...
As much as I dreaded turning 30, believe it or not I'm actually starting to...
Turning conventional neuroscience on its head, new research suggests the...
BURKE, N.Y. -- Everywhere that Janet and Ken Tacy...
Posted March 6, 2008 | 10:40 AM (EST)