On the Red Phone

To hear Larry read his post, click the play button below

Here's an idea for an Obama ad: a montage of Clinton's Sybillish personalities that have surfaced during the campaign with a solemn voiceover at the end saying, "Does anyone want this nut answering the phone?"

How is it that she became the one who's perceived as more equipped to answer that 3 a.m. call than the unflappable Obama? He, with the ice in his veins, who doesn't panic when he's losing or get too giddy when he's winning, who's as comfortable in his own skin as she's uncomfortable in hers. There have been times in this campaign when she seemed so unhinged that I worried she'd actually kill herself if she lost. Every day, she reminds me more and more of Adele H., who also had an obsession that drove her insane.

A few weeks ago, I started to feel sorry for her. Oh Christ, let her win already...Who cares...It's not worth it. There's not that much difference between them. She can have it. Anything to avoid watching her descend into madness. So I switched. I started rooting for her. It wasn't that hard. Compromise comes easy to me. I was on board.

And then I saw the ad.

I watched, transfixed, as she took the 3 a.m. call...and I was afraid...very afraid. Suddenly, I realized the last thing this country needs is that woman anywhere near a phone. I don't care if it's 3 a.m. or 10 p.m. or any other time. I don't want her talking to Putin, I don't want her talking to Kim Jong Il, I don't want her talking to my nephew. She needs a long rest. She needs to put on a sarong and some sun block and get away from things for a while, a nice beach somewhere -- somewhere far away, where there are...no phones.

Comments

[jerseywolf]

Meanwhile, President Bush vetoed a bill banning waterboarding. It's quite alright to talk about the boundaries of decency in a campaign. And it is also quite good for Democrats to criticize their own candidates with zeal and humor. But this news is scary as hell and deserving of our attention. We've become too inured to the actions of this administration.

[Ono4Hoopono]

I swear, it's the comedians and comediennes who are going to get us through this. Talk about a strong argument for why we need arts education, and difficult childhoods, [so comedians can have a place develop their survival skill craft for the rest of us to enjoy!]. Can you imagine this election without the humorists? Way to go, and thanks.

[dartagnan]

We gotta laugh to keep from crying -- or going insane.

[DickClark]

The LeBair reply to the Larry David blog on emotionalism proves the Larry David point.....What a "hoot"....They are so blinded by their emotionalism and they get so involved in it that they prove his point.

I hope the Larry David observation becomes clearer as the campaign goes on.....I expect that it will as the pressure builds and Clinton becomes more and more desperate. Can't wait to see a video collage of the Clinton range of emotions. I will be "classic".

It will be interesting to see how Clinton and McCain's emotional make up will be revealed to seal their campaign fates as Obama's will be to contribute to his win.
Can't wait to see a video collage of the Clinton range of emotions. I will be "classic".

[swkidder]

This is hysterically funny and tragically on the mark. I started watching this campaign as an Edwards/Obama supporter, but willing to vote for Hillary if that ended up being my choice. Gradually I shifted to ... "Well, I could hold my nose and vote for her." ... and then I watched the naked ego emerge and the increasingly desperate need to win. I heard Edwards and Obama's speeches after Iowa ... both of them about what the country needed. And I heard Hillary's ... about what she needed to do to win the next primary. Apparently we have our answers in South Carolina and with this last .. disgusting ... advertisement.
I swear, if the Beltway White Boys stick me with this woman as the Democrats' Presidential candidate because she's bought by corporate money and sold to the DLC, I will stay home in November and do something like bake cookies rather than wasting my time voting. She's only a little less crazy than McCain. And I have voted for the "lesser of two evils" for the last time." This time I want to vote for someone I'd be proud to see in the White House, and that someone is Barack Obama.

[liberalissima]

Dear Larry, yes, Hillary will be ready to answer the phone, but not the phone we all think about; THE RED PHONE, so she can invade Iran, and any other oil-country as well as Venezuela, Cuba, Ecuador, Chile, Brazil etc etc. etc., and Exxon, Mobil, the Bushes and any other oil companies own them. Let's face it, there is no democrat as republican as Hillar Rodham Clinton.

[Anie]

My question is: Why is she wearing a suit at 3am ?

[Goldie9]

Hillary's also has her make-up neatly applied and her hair neatly coiffed at 3:00am, too -- LMAO!

[LarBear]

Larry David said: "I watched, transfixed, as she took the 3 a.m. call...and I was afraid...very afraid. Suddenly, I realized the last thing this country needs is that woman anywhere near a phone."

So, isn't the more REAL Question: Is Fear an Emotional Reaction??? Startle is Natural... (The Fight/Flight response) ... Fear can be taught and learned... Did Larry let his Emotions run wild over an Ad? WOWSERS!

[dartagnan]

Because The Hillarybot never sleeps.

[NC4Obama]

The kid in the video who is now 17 is a Obama supporter btw.

[warren76]

Here's the link! Pretty funny I think....she's actually pretty actively campaigning for Obama!

http://thenewargument.com/index.php/2008/03/07/breaking-news-child-in-clinton%e2%80%99s-%e2%80%9c3am-phone-ad%e2%80%9d-supports-obama/

[LBKN]

I guess Hillary's premise is that it takes a fearful village to teach children to be afraid of the boogey man.

[rodrp0ny]

Ahhh Larry- why must we wait so long between posts? Genius stuff.

[Mommiablo]

Dear Larry,

You met my youngest son, Brooks, at the Kaplan’s fundraiser and you were kind enough to pose for a picture which he proudly displays in his room.

My sons are 16, 19 and 24, wonderful young men. As a politically active mother, I have shoved down their throats this knowledge: That political discourse is vital, because the governance of our great country is so important. So I’ve taught my sons that they should debate their politics, but at the highest level, honestly and fairly, on the merits of policy and practice.

Notwithstanding the fact that most candidates, including my girl Hillary, steps over the line, I believe you long-jumped over the line. You should have had your writers pen the blog, because your own attempt made hay on a way- too- easy cheap shot.

When I observed discriminatory practices, I sued my employer and won a settlement for 1,000 female financial advisors. It is a Pyrrhic victory in retrospect, realizing that $46 million is chump change to Morgan Stanley, and that my sons lived with a mother in distress for the five years of the lawsuit. So it goes. But have you considered lately the state of the female? Every day there are examples that it is open season on girls and women.

I am afraid that in the soon to come years, she will have become the standard. Every female candidate will be judged against Hillary – “I knew Hillary Clinton, and you are no Hillary Clinton”. Then we will realize what we lost.

I will leave shortly to go to my state caucus because I am a pledged delegate for Hillary. Nick and Tay are old enough to vote, and I believe they will cast their lot for Barack, All this interest and decision-making is good. I’m going to try to make something good out of your blog, perhaps seeing if my sons will get a good laugh out of it. In the meantime, feel free to call any one of us.

Regards

[Zyzzygowski]

**"I knew Hillary Clinton, and you are no Hillary Clinton". Then we will realize what we lost.**

What does this mean? So, what if Sen Clinton is the standard. Isn't that a good thing? And, what was lost?

**Every day there are examples that it is open season on girls and women.**

Huh? Please name a couple.

**including my girl Hillary**

Oh my goodness. What if Sen Obama used that phrased? Yes, there is a double standard and you just proved it.

[SimpleTwist]

Thank You! Well said!

[Tumult]

"When I observed discriminatory practices, I sued my employer and won a settlement for 1,000 female financial advisors. It is a Pyrrhic victory in retrospect, realizing that $46 million is chump change to Morgan Stanley, and that my sons lived with a mother in distress for the five years of the lawsuit. So it goes. But have you considered lately the state of the female? Every day there are examples that it is open season on girls and women.
I am afraid that in the soon to come years, she will have become the standard. Every female candidate will be judged against Hillary " "I knew Hillary Clinton, and you are no Hillary Clinton". Then we will realize what we lost."

Aside from the section I quoted above yours was a good post. In the section I quoted you seem to be saying, I am a bigot and this is why. I know the candidates are very similar on stated policy positions, but are you voting for Hillary Clinton because the diffrences are important to you, or because you are being a bigot about gender?

You do not see a problem with the red phone Ad and, the similarity to Republican tactics?

You agree with Hillary when she states she would refuse to talk to nations we have a problem with? Would you let one of your sons get away with refusing to talk to another one?

You don't see problems with the Clinton Administration for ending the welfare safety net, NAFTA, asking the Fed to allow inflation to erode workers salries, the numerous pardons to white collar criminals that they were associated with, renting out the Lincoln Bedroom, illegaly obtaining FBI files on employees they were defending their right to fire, handing US ports over to a Chineese company, Bill Clinton advising the Dubai government on the deal to hand US ports over to a Dubai company post 9/11, ect, ect, ect. Why have they buried documents from their administration, where are the tax returns, you don't think this is something primary voters should know? Why did Hillary refuse to work with even democrats when she was trying to get her Universal Health care through the first time, why did she say vote for it or I will demonize you? Is that the actions of a leader?

I know why I am supporting Obama, it has nothing to do with race, gender, age, or his ability to give a speech. He has made decisions I agree with, and his stated positions are in line with my thinking before I ever heard his name. The theme of his campaign has been everyone join us and TOGETHER we can make a change for the better. Obama is saying believe in the American people. Hillary Clinton is saying believe in ME.

[KimberlyKay]

I wanted to support Senator Clinton at the beginning of this, especially because I want a woman President and I knew now would be a great opportunity to achieve this. Unfortunately, Senator Clinton is not the kind of candidate I can support. She has neither vision for this Country, nor any clear message as to how she could change the Washington status quo of constant partisan bickering. I also do not approve of her the ends justify the means strategy to win. With great sadness, I was forced to check the field to see if someone else had what I was seeking. Senator Obama has all of the qualities we need.

We as women cannot claim equality and then demand that we not be vetted and examined. This will not work. If Senator Clinton (and others) keep complaining that real critique (or humorous critique) is sexist, just wait for the backlash. Women will never break free of old stereotypes if we accept the "victimhood" routine where we parse words to suggest that the use of the word "periodically" somehow refers to menstruation. I don't know if you have engaged in that extent of absurdity, but I can tell you that sort of overreach will backlash on women in a big way. Men don't know what to make of it. When men fight they do not resort to parsing words to find offense. When the offense is real, everyone knows it. When the offense is fabricated, some women may buy into it, but potentially at the expense of their own progress. The old sexism involved a serious paternalism where women needed to be "protected" by men from the cold hard world. When women suggest that criticism or even a humerous questioning of sanity is somehow sexist, we return ourselves to that old sexism and this time, we do it to ourselves. Women can be unbalanced, just like men can be. If Larry David had written this article about Senator McCain (or President Bush) you would not have cried reverse sexism. Please remember that after Senator Clinton's run for the White House, women still have to work and function in the world that is left -- let us not set back women's rights in the interest of forcefeeding Senator Clinton on this Country. This Country IS ready for a woman President; unfortunately, many of us are not ready to accept one who so obviously believes that the ends justify any means. I have and will continue to reject any male candidate with that philosphy and I am not about to embrace a woman candidate who "throws the kitchen sink" against a member of her own party simply because she happens to share my sex.

[mlaiuppa]

So are you saying I should support Hillary just because she's a woman? Just because women have been discriminated against? I should support her just for payback?

Integrity is a big issue with me. Whether it is a man or a woman. My President needs integrity. That is why I didn't vote for Bush. That is why I will not vote for McCain.

And that is why I will not vote for Hillary. Not BECAUSE she is a woman be DESPITE the fact she is a woman. This country is absolutely ready for a woman president. But that woman is not Hillary.

[user168]

I am a woman who thinks it is the selfish Hillary message about "Me", "Me woman", and "Me woman win" that really scares me. I don't want to see a next generation cast by a spell of narcissism. That would mean taking away forever their intelligence, compassion, and courage. Hillary sure knows best about "false hopes" and "cheap words".

[lissielu]

This article by Larry David should be sent to every newspaper. He really captures hysterical Hillary

[WadeNYC]

Bravo Larry! Well said. No one knows pyschoses better than you, so I trust your judgment completely in this matter. I guess being a fighter means you go down swinging and take the party with you. Very admirable, Hillary. All that's left now is the tearful farewell speech that secures your place in history as the ultimate victim of a vast left-wing misogynistic conspiracy. If PTSD qualifies one to be Commander in Chief, Hillary's right -- she and John McCain are way ahead of the pack.

[LarBear]

Larry David = Girly Girl???
So, "I watched, transfixed, as she took the 3 a.m. call...and I was afraid...very afraid. Suddenly, I realized the last thing this country needs is that woman anywhere near a phone"...
OMG, Larry, you are soooooo emotional... Maybe your Hormones are raging??? Oh, Larry, did you collapse in Hysteria??? I agree... snicker... chortle... Manly Men Like you would be better than some emotional WOMAN answering the Phone... OMG, can you imagine...
Can you imagine a Man's Man watching an Ad on TV and being afraid, very afraid! OMG, No way is HE going to spread Fear and hysteria... It's them thar Wimen that get so emotional... Guys like McCain lose their Temper, but women are Emotional, you know...
Can you imagine a Democrat, Blogger, Man's Man, writing a Blog spreading Fear of a Candidate... It's only Republicans who bring Fear into Politics... Spreading Fear is soooo Emotional and just wrong, wrong, wrong for any Democrat supporter to do!
Obama wouldn't spread Fear... After all, it's not like he Campaigns on a Vote for Hillary is a Vote for War, does he??? Obama is a better Commander in Chief as a Rookie than Hillary... It's not like he would use Military Options... Because he says Hillary's vote for Military Options was a Vote for War... A Vote to Invade - Occupy Iraq... He wouldn't Lie to us would he? Hillary is scary isn't she??? Hey, it's not like Obama is implying be very afraid of Hillary... Or, maybe that's one of those Positive Fears his Campaign spreads???

[applespider]

Obama is a "rookie" as Commander-in-Chief? WHAT? Hillary has less elected public experience than Obama!

Hillary's "experience" is as First Lady. Enough, already. It's not real experience. She's a liar for trying to pass it off as such.

And, just to address your sexism claim in advance, I'd trust my wife to answer the red phone any time day or night before I'd trust Hillary Clinton. When her crisis call arived, she froze up and then became hysterical. Read her book. She tells the whole story.

[dartagnan]

"Manly Men Like you would be better than some emotional WOMAN answering the Phone"

He didn't say he didn't want A woman answering the phone, he said he didn't want THAT woman answering the phone. Can you discern the difference?

[jazzman]

I love this post. It gets to the heart of the matter. When someone asks me if I'm supporting Hillary, I just answer, "which one?"

[FOXYLADY]

PERHAPS YOU ASK "WHICH ONE" AS YOU CAN'T FIGURE OUT WHICH WAY YOUR HEAD IS TURNING! HOW ABOUT MORE "SPIN"??

[user168]

In fact, it is very easy to spot her. Just look for the one who speaks about false hopes with cheap words. You won't miss. She is the one and only one on earth with "false hopes".

[gernger]

It's amazing to me that although Hillary is running even with Omama, comments on this blog are going 20-1 against her.In a poll taken before the Texas and Ohio primaries 2/3 of democrats polled said they wanted Hillary to stay in the race. Maybe an awful lot of republicans are writing these comments, or anti Hillary people are piling on here. This blog is not reflective of democrats across the country.

[RobHoff]

In the popular vote Obama reaps in a nearly 2:1 advantage and by State it is 27 to 14 Obama, how is this blog not reflective. Also what about this Mark Penn connection and the high numbers of Republicans crossing over to help muddle things up, Ms. Clinton carries way too much baggage

Take Care,

RH

[dartagnan]

I don't think there can be any question that the Repukelicans would rather run against Hillary than Obama. Here's what one of them -- Rep. Steve King of Iowa -- predicted would happen if Obama is elected: "The radical Islamists, the al-Qaida ... would be dancing in the streets in greater numbers than they did on Sept. 11 because they would declare victory in this war on terror."

[gernger]

Of all the comments that I have read, yours is the most ubsurd.A 2-1 margin means a landslide bigger than we have ever seen. Try to get your facts straight.

[arvada]

maybe a lot of republicans voted for hillary in texas

[protagonia]

So Hillary is "Double Dipping"?

[TxWonderWoman]

gernger... fortunately for us and America most people don't read this silly blog. I read it because I am addicted to laughing at the Obamabots and their hope filled hypocracy. Kind of reminds me of me when I was 17 or 18. I'm so glad that I'm now 53 and don't fall for snake oil salesmen any more. And, I'm glad that at my ancient age I totally get why it's important to have a ball busting fighter in the White House. Dems have made the mistake over and over and over and over, that we are on the "side of right" and we should rise above all the politikin... and the American people will come to their senses and choose good over bad, pretty over ugly, kind over mean...... Sorry folks... it doesn't happen that way. It's no coincidence that the only Democrat to win two presidential elections in more than 50 years was Bill Clinton. He knows how to fight... and he also married a fighter. The only way to win against the angry white men of the Republican party is to go for the balls everytime you see an opening. I should know, I live in Texas for God sakes. The only bright sign I see on the horizon for Obama is I think he married a fighter too. Maybe Obama should accept VP and over the next 8 years Hillary, Bill, and Michelle can work on toughening him up for the contest in 2016.

[Vnd]

Good post, TXWonderWoman. Democrats didn't fight for the 2000 election and look where it got us. Politics is tough business.

[jkminwa]

All I can say, there is looking tough, and telling people about you are fighter, and there is being tough. And part of being tough is knowing when to be quiet, how to stay calm and how to get things done. Do you really believe Obama has risen as he has without understanding politics? You need to read the VF article about him. In my experience, people who expend lots of energy fighting often are less successful than those who conserve their energy for fights when energy is required. But, hey, if you want a good show, go ahead - vote for the candidate who wastes tremendous energy and lots of political capital being a "fighter."

[janinflorida]

Yes, Gernger, there are no doubt republicans adding to the comments but my observation throughout the past months is that Arianna Huffington has taken an anti-Hillary position and therefore brought more of like thinkers to bash and bash some more. I visit the site less often now because of the ugliness that I always believed was a Republican trait! I am dismayed that Democrats have acted this way towards their own and am now less excited about the upcoming election because of it.

[dartagnan]

"I visit the site less often now because of the ugliness that I always believed was a Republican trait!"

Ahem.

Whose campaign compared Obama to Ken Starr? Which candidate said John McBomb is better qualified to be commander in chief than Obama? Which candidate, when asked whether she thought Obama was a Muslim, replied: “No. No. Why would I? No, there is nothing to base that on. As far as I know.”

"As far as I know." Nice.

Hillary is the Queen of Slime, and for her supporters to get all prissy when Obama and his supporters criticize her reeks of hypocrisy.

[KimberlyKay]

I too had believed that ugliness was a Republican trait. And then, I woke up one morning and found out that Senator Clinton had just endorsed Senator McCain over Senator Obama. Now, don't deny it, you know it is so.

For the record, Republicans wouldn't put up with this sort of intra-party fight. If "Mittens", I mean -- sorry, should stay civil -- Governor Romney had done this to Senator McCain his days in the Republican party would be few and his power extinguished.

Senator Clinton believes that it is "the fun part" to throw accusations. This is not spin, I saw her say it, I heard her start throwing accusations at Senator Obama. She is an attorney so she knows what plagiarism is (the use of copyrighted material without permission or citation), yet she deliberately stated that Senator Obama committed "plagiarism" when he used his friend's non-copywrited speech with permission. I could say that perhaps Senator Clinton did not know the law, but that would be hitting below the belt. I know Senator Clinton is very intelligent. I also know that she (and now many of her supporters) believe that if she wins, it doesn't matter how she does it. I reject that philosphy out of hand, not only because my Catholic religion tells me too, but also because any number of American voices have condemned this bankrupt morality. In the words of one of our greatest Judges, Brandeis, in America "liberty is the means and liberty is the ends," if this is not the case, we risk losing our Republic. I believed this before I ever heard Senator Obama open his mouth. Senator Clinton's actions are a disappointment to me and it is her ugliness that I find disheartening. However, I know that a woman candidate will run one day who shares my belief that winning is meaningless if you can only obtain at the expense of the forward progress of women's rights, your party and your Country. I hope that woman comes soon because I do want to see it before I die.

[jkminwa]

I have read over and over about Hillary bashing, but until the last week, the posts with the most vitriol were aimed at Obama. He was an "empty suit," a "charlatan," and a "snake oil salesman." He was "cocky," (uppity?) and his campaign was all "kumbayah" (if that isn't racist, I don't what is). Yesterday, I read that he was “the Deceiver.” (Don’t worry…I don’t believe this was the opinion of a Clinton backer, just a troll.) Only after the Clinton campaign started selectively and grossly misrepresenting Obama’s experience and positions, failing even to dismiss without reservation the slime campaign regarding Obama’s religious beliefs (which shouldn’t make a difference, but might anyway), did many posters begin to attack Clinton personally.

Until last week, all I and most of the other "Obamabots" asked for was details about her. She claims to have 35 years of experience, but experience doing what, exactly? Why did she believe that supporting the Iraq resolution would facilitate diplomacy? She supported Kyl-Lieberman regarding the Iranian Revolutionary Guard - does that mean she always believe some threat of force, explicit or implicit, is necessary to engage a country in diplomacy, or did she support that resolution just to look tough? Frankly, I'm a little concerned about what her legislative record says about her view of executive power.

My concern is greater now than before because of the way she has run her campaign. Like McCain and Obama, Clinton has limited managerial experience. She has run her senate office, and run campaigns, so I must judge her managerial ability using these poor substitutes. The way her campaign spent its huge treasure chest suggests she expected the nomination and did not size up the competition well. Politicians who do not recognize the political prowess of their competitors will not be as successful as those who do. This is the single example available to me of her ability to manage a large organization, and it looks like a mess from here. Sure, she has fought her way back, but wouldn't it have been better if she had managed her campaign so that fighting her way back wasn't necessary?

Oh, I know, it's all because of media bias, right? But Presidents lead by securing public support through the media. While the media treated her and Bill unfairly in the 90s, some of her difficulties with media are a consequence of how she acts toward the media. How will she be able to use the media to get support for her proposals as President if she cannot work with them as a Presidential candidate?

Every one of these issues relates directly to her ability to lead. Yes, some of these issues address her personality and not her ideas. But leadership is not just having a portfolio of policies. No doubt, you see the criticism of tearing up in New Hampshire, and the comments about her laugh, as personal attacks, reflective of a double standard on emotion. What I hear from people who have not picked her as their first choice, is that neither the laugh nor the tears seemed genuine; that is, the problem is not, too much emotion, but not enough honesty. Even her high-profile supporters like Paul Begala have said, the warm, compassionate, friendly Hillary I know is not the Hillary on the campaign trail. The problem here, though, isn’t that she isn’t nice (except, of course, the reason I want Obama to be President is because he’s who I’d most like to have a glass of wine with, right? I’ve read that one at least a dozen times) but that it’s hard to trust anything someone says if you believe they aren’t being honest about themselves.

So, after spending way too much time on this, I’ll sum up by writing, give it a rest. Stop characterizing Democrats who disagree with you as automatons, cultists, morons or misogynists. Make the best case for your candidate, and urge your candidate to make the best case for herself, without misrepresenting the positions or experience of her opponent. Finally, don’t engage in scorched earth campaigns if you don’t like it when they are used against you.

[styrofoam]

it was a lame add, but we are all still yappin about it.

[luckyt]

Its time for Hillary to join Joe Lieberman and go repug.