Clinton Channels Reagan: "There's A Bear In the Woods. Some Say It's Tame..."

Hillary Clinton's new campaign ad airing in Texas, which uses Bush/Cheney/Rovian tactics to scare voters into voting for her, should be enough to make everyone vote against her. Haven't we had enough fearmongering from the Bushies? Do we really want another President who will amp up the color-coded "be very very afraid" warning to Code Flashing Bright Red just before her next election? I don't think so.

But at least her ad -- and Obama's responding ad, which shows how much he learned from John Kerry's error in not swiftly rebutting Swiftboaters like Clinton -- give us the chance to do two things:

First, it lets us see Hillary's campaign for what it is -- a desperate effort to demoralize us into being afraid to take a chance on change, borrowing heavily from Karl Rove's "politics of fear" tactics and, especially, borrowing most heavily from another hawkish conservative, Ronald Reagan.

Second, it allows us to compare apples to apples by looking at two political commercials, first Hillary's attack, then Barack's truthful and measured response, and decide which candidate's approach we like best. Let's take these in turn:

First: Hillary Clinton ♥ Ronald Reagan (and Bush/Cheney). In the 1984 Presidential campaign, the candidates disagreed about how big a threat the USSR was. Then the Reagan-Bush campaign ran this famous ad, "Bear In The Woods", invoking American's fear of the Soviet Union (whose symbol was a bear):

As it turned out (and the CIA itself sheepishly admitted), the Soviet bear actually was tame, and collapsed under the weight of its own failings shortly afterward. But Reagan's "Bear" ad helped him win re-election, because it made people afraid to vote for change.

In 2004, Bush/Cheney copied Reagan's theme, updated to reflect terrorism as the new enemy, in their ad, "Wolves":

Now compare Reagan's and Bush/Cheney's fearmongering with Hillary's ad, "Children" (aka "3:00 AM"), aired in Texas early today:

Now ask: is Clinton appealing to your reason, or to your fear? Is she addressing a legitimate issue in a responsible way -- or channeling the spirit of Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, and Dick Cheney?

Second: Who's Better Qualified to Answer the Red Phone, Clinton or Obama? Next, let's compare Hillary's attack ad (above) with Obama's response, "Ringing," prepared with lightning speed and released today (the same day as Clinton's ad!):

By the way, in case you're still thinking that Hillary"Experience" Clinton actually has answered the red phone to deal with a foreign policy emergency in the middle of the night -- her own campaign essentially says, um... no, actually, she hasn't. (H/T Yglesias.) So I'd say Obama's good judgment trumps Clinton's poor judgment on Iraq, given that neither one has ever been President before.

Finally, three questions (OK, three sets of questions):

1) Which candidate is losing, flailing, and on the attack, and which candidate is responding with toughness, truth -- and class?

2) If Obama wins the nomination, do you think Clinton's ad will hurt his chances of winning against war hero John McCain? If so, what does that say about Hillary's commitment to the party and the country? Is she mainly interested in what's best for all of us, or just in winning for herself?

3) Democrats want a nominee who can actually win in November. Clinton claims she knows how to run a campaign, fight tough opponents -- and that those skills carry over into how she'll run the White House. But which candidate is flailing around, reaching back two decades to find dirty tricks in hopes of salvaging a victory, and which candidate is running an effective, efficient, on-message campaign -- managing money well, planning ahead, responding quickly and appropriately to attacks, and generally showing the kind of leadership and toughness we expect both in a candidate and in a President?

Relevant news stories from Time, Time again, CNN, CNN again, and the Wall Street Journal (reaching back, not to Reagan's 1984 "bear" ad, but to LBJ's 1964 "Daisy" ad -- almost as if the paper now owned by Fox News' Rupert Murdoch, who threw Hillary a campaign fundraiser two years ago, doesn't want to admit that she's its preferred candidate, and much more conservative than she pretends to be).

The author writes the blogs Vichy Democrats and The NeoProgressive.

Comments

[bellecloche]

A great post - thanks! Having once had my respect, she's spent the past month making me want to keep my November vote as far from her as is Democratically possible.

[verlaine]

This is an Excellent Post.

My great fear however, is that there are enough ignorant voters who will be persuaded by Hillary's fear card. Hillary has been pounding this media bias issue very hard. My other fear is that if she manages to win Texas and Ohio, the media will swing back to her because of guilt over the bias accusations. Obama must win Texas and Ohio or else Hillary will have all the momentum.

Hillary is the queen of gutter politics and lacks the character, integrity, or gravitas to be President.

[Selam]

I think the ad shows a true self of Hillary Clinton. In day one, she is ready to scare us all. The ad reminds me when I was a kid, the bulls used to scare the hell out of kids. Now, Clinton is doing it.

It is not a pleasant ad, it is dark, and it lacks a vision. She can not get out from the box that she is as equal as men, and she has to act like men. We know, it is men"s world, and that is why we are in such a mess, who wants to be like them? She is not running as woman caring, loving, and peaceful person. She is driven, and she out there to proof something, why?

She had all the advantages being a woman, and she blew it all. Because she played the same game as the men in Washington, and she couldn"t proof to the voters that she can bring change in Washington. That is why people fear of her that she would do the same as George Bush.

Her own ad will benefits Obama " in tough times, you stay calm, you observe, and you weight the situation before you waking up the kids at 3.00 am, and that is what judgment is, and Hillary lacks that which is uncommon for most women.

[shengirl]

Yes, if things do not go as she plans and expects, she seems to go all to pieces. She is seriously lacking in flexibility. Is this what we want in president? There's a crisis and she's whining, blaming others, manipulating, holding meetings to try this... no this... no that. And she never seems to learn from any of her campaign missteps. If something doesn't work, why then, they just try more of it. And more. Evidently they think they can eventually browbeat the public into seeing the brilliance of these failed campaign strategies, if they just keep pushing them. No thanks.

[Eoin45]

Hillary and her entire campaign should be deeply ashamed of this. It's no different than Bush and Cheney's tactics. I personally hope that voters will be as insulted by it as I am and slap her down but good. I used to think that if she got the nomination I'd vote for her but that notion just flew out the window. No more DLCers, no more Clintons.

[PioneerKing]

In the Sen. Obama ad the phone gets answered quicker, and when the Sen. Clinton phone is finally answered it looks like a switch board operator is on the phone. I figure that by the time Sen. Clinton gets the call Sen. Obama has already responded. hehehehe

[marybanilow]

Great analysis. With all this talk of who you'd want to handle a crisis, isn't it remarkable that Obama has not lost his cool even once during this campaign?

[DudeE]

Ah yeah. As though Obama isn't pulling his own scare routine. We should fear a rehash of the awful partisan '90s (apparently forgetting that for the subsequent 6 years partisanship subsided because of a Republican trifecta which effectively trampled any opposition). We should fear being too aggressive on health care because Republicans might not like it. We should fear being 'forced' to enroll healthcare if we're poor (and let's ignore the policy details around hardship exemptions and subsidies).

Let's get real and acknowledge that Obama has done his fair share of fearmongering in this race.

[DRHoen]

Fear of partisanship? Clinton's ad invokes real fear, fear that your kids might die in their beds if Obama is elected. Not some abstract distaste for policy positions.

Get real.

[DRaymond]

You've hit the nail on the head with what I feel is really crappy about this new line of attack by Hillary. She's reading right out of the Neocon/Republican playbook and in the process making it easier for them in November.

[CatfishJohn]

...an excellent, concise piece sir...the clinton approach does seem to be gettiNG a little "fail-safe" now deosnt it.....perhaps next Hillary can use today's computer tech to "photoshop" herself into the 1964 Daisy ad used by Johnson to pulverize godlwater, with Hillary whisking the girl to safety and dressed as Wonderman protecting the little blondie with a shield.!!!!.. a littrle hyperoblic in the imagery perhaps... but she's getting that desperate it does seem.....in addition, what immediately caught my eye here on the local Balimore News was the fact Obama responded effectively only 3 hours later and ihis response was beign broadcast on local news channels the same evening...this portends well when Charlie Black et. al. inevitably unleash ther vicious attack ads on Obama this late summer and fall...no windsurfing for Obama vs.t he slimeball Repubs this summer; but a lightning quick response if Dottering John in desperation goes toxic with his campaign....based on this pair of ads, this time the Dems will be responding in record time....OBAMA '08!

[Snowball]

This is an awesome post, a real smack down.

What America needs is a new, fresh and realistic approach to foreign policy that rejects the old guard Washington elite consensus, engages in mature diplomacy, works with allies and enemies to defuse international crises and turns away from belligerent knee-jerk ultra-nationalism. We need to reengage the world and stand up as an example to be followed, not just feared.