Answering the Phone

There has been considerable controversy lately over who in the next administration should be answering the White House phone at 3 in the morning. Although Hillary's advisors contrived that commercial in order to raise doubts about Obama's inexperience, the strategy seems to have backfired. No one on the team seems to have considered who might be on the other end of the call. Yes, it's true a few cynics are suggesting it might be some unidentified woman asking if Bill was available. My experience with mothers and daughters persuades me that nobody will answer, regardless of who is calling. The phone will be busy anyway, with Hillary talking to Chelsea.

Then there's the fact that nothing really happens to anyone at 3 in the morning except perhaps for a little urinary urgency. My memory regarding national emergencies goes back a long way -- to Pearl Harbor, as a matter of fact, which started World War II. But that sneak attack happened in the day time. Then there was the Tonkin Gulf incident, Lyndon Johnson's pretext for initiating the Vietnam War, also during the day. Then there was the hostage incident in Grenada, which resulted in Ronald Reagan's daytime invasion of that menacing Caribbean island, and his success in making it safe for duty free. Then came the two terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center which occurred under the watch of George W. Bush between 9 and 10 in the morning. And then there was the triumphant discovery that led to the Iraq invasion, that Saddam was in bed with Osama. But while this may have occurred to Donald Rumsfeld while he was sleeping, it was more likely a postprandial daydream.

Since all of these incidents -- Pearl Harbor and the World Trade Center are the exceptions -- were trumped up by our government in order to initiate hostilities somewhere, it could be argued that the White House should cancel its red phone altogether and save the taxpayer unnecessary expenses. However, if America really insists on a White House telephone operator, here's my candidate -- Admiral William J. Fallon. How can he apply for the job? He should run as Barack Obama's vice president. My reasons are the following: Admiral Fallon can salute as smartly as George W. Bush, and no doubt can swagger a bit as well. He wears multiple ribbons on his chest which more than compensate for Bush's lapel flag, an item Barack mercifully refuses to wear. He can smell a phony order -- the surge, the continued hostilities, the Iraq war itself -- and, unlike virtually anyone else in the military, is brave enough to say so. And since he is a member of the armed forces of this country, no one in the Republican Party can ever question his patriotism, as they do everybody else who questions this disastrous adventure. Barack should therefore cede to him the role of commander in chief, a title few presidents since George Washington have been qualified to have anyway. Let history decide how well he can answer a phone.

Comments

[chasgoose]

This easily has to be one of the most absurd attacks on either candidate that I have read on HuffPo (and there have been some ridiculous ones from both sides).


So what, Clinton's ad is flawed for suggesting that a crisis would happen at 3 in the morning when history has demonstrated that most major world crises happen during the day? Are you serious? Do you really think the ad would have worked as well at 11 AM? Of course not! Clinton was playing on the pop culture image of tense Cold War negotiations happening while the American public is fast asleep (think Dr. Strangelove/ Fail-Safe). Its an image that resonates with viewers regardless of whether or not it could actually happen. Are we really trying to apply logic to such a blatantly manipulative ad?


Also to those who say that Ferraro is out of line for suggesting that Clinton sexist treatment in the media (she was out of line with her race-based comments, but her point about sexism was valid), how do you interpret this:


"Yes, it's true a few cynics are suggesting it might be some unidentified woman asking if Bill was available. My experience with mothers and daughters persuades me that nobody will answer, regardless of who is calling. The phone will be busy anyway, with Hillary talking to Chelsea."


Imagine if he said that Obama wasn't there to answer the phone because he was out buying a pack of Newports and some malt liquor. People would be demanding that his post be taken down and screaming about the racism of Clinton supporters. Implying that Bill would be the one actually in the Oval Office (cheating on his wife no less) or that Clinton would be mindlessly chatting on the phone with her daughter is no less offensive than the stereotypical comments I proposed about Obama. How is it OK to let something so blatantly sexist pass, when Obama supporters get all up in arms about any comment that could possibly be interpreted as racist (saying that Clinton besmirched the name of MLK when she stated the fact that it took President LBJ to get the Civil Rights act signed, for example). While I don't think that Obama has an advantage because he is black (he would still be able to make such comments if he were white too), there is a double standard between the way that the media tolerates racist and sexist comments.

[SamanthaJaneSalem]

If the phone rings at 3 a.m. in President Obama's White House it could very well be Chris Wallace of Fox Noise still begging him for that interview.

The water-carrying by the worried white guys and blonde gals at Faux News over the weekend was especially straining this time around. All that obsessing over Rev. Wright's sermons-- 0.09% of them anyway-- and so little time. Bret Baier, who looks like he should be hosting "Newz 4 Kidz," has his own show now: "All Wright, All Night" or "Strategery Room," I forget which (but he *will* be wearing cowboy boots like his hero Dubya).

Now that Senator Clinton is running as the Republican candidate-- as a favor to her ol' bud McCain-- she needn't waste any more of the tax refund she got-- according to her 2007 1040EZ form-- on "red phone" ads. In fact, she can even stop making speeches (if she gives them, because she *is* all action, you know) and give her raspy vocal chords a well-deserved rest-- Brit Hume, the last living Neanderthal, has the whole "Obama isn't experienced" thing covered.

Senator Clinton may have had nothing to do with actual peace talks in Ireland, but she most definitely is partcipating in a St. Patrick's Day parade in Pennsylvania today.

[RobertHewson]

From today's "Head of State"
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/03/making-turn.html

Monday, March 17, 2008
Making The Turn: Clinton's Newest Move--And How Obama Can Respond

In a speech today at George Washington University, Hillary Clinton indicated the next clever move of the Clinton camp--making a turn from attack on Obama by insinuation and surrogates, to a serious and detailed speech on the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, leveled largely against Bush and McCain. Having drawn Obama out to respond to the attacks, the plan is clearly to now outflank, moving forward on the issue of Iraq, thus leaving Obama standing amid the mire of the attacks while also attempting to underscore the foreign policy "experience" argument and to turn the narrative towards the general.

Wearing an incongruously joyous shamrock-covered scarf, Clinton spoke in even and leveled "3. a.m." tones of soldiers "who have made the ultimate sacrifice" and who have "experienced wounds both visible and invisible to their bodies, their minds and their hearts."

That President Bush seems to want to keep as many troops after the surge as before...is a clear admission that the surge has not accomplished its goals. Meanwhile, as we continue to police Iraq's civil war, the to our national security, our economy, and our standing in the world continue to mount." She then tied the ongoing expense in Iraq to her core domestic issues--health care for the uninsured, pre-K for children, solving the housing crisis, providing support for college students, and offering tax relief.

Repeatedly tying the failed policy of Bush to that of McCain, and citing chairman of the J.C.S. Mullen, she invoked the "unescapable reality"--we can have troops on the ground for 100 years--but there is no political solution" to the war in Iraq.

The payoff: "Withdrawal is not defeat--defeat is keeping troops in iraq for 100 years. Defeat is straining our alliances and losing our standing in the world. Defeat is losing our reseources and diverting attention from our key interests."

A deft move. As Obama prepares to level strong attacks against Clinton in response to the onslaught of the previous weeks, Clinton is now premptively changing the message and focus to Bush, McCain, the war in Iraq, and withdrawal. Underscoring the latter is certain to draw media attention, and is intended tactically to leave Obama standing in the echo of his return attacks, in the potential position of being a step behind, with the questions of Clinton, however legitimate, unanswered. After having leveled the most broad-brush attacks against Obama, the Clinton camp is now attempting to place Obama in the perceived position of leveling attacks, rather than dealing, as they now happen to be, "with the serious issues of the day."

What Obama can do:

Do *not* avoid Clinton's newest turn. Instead, come strong--having first *tied* Clinton's speech to the questions that will now be raised about her, e.g.

"Hillary Clinton, has raised questions about fitness for office--at the same time that, as the person running second in this contest, she has said that I would make an excellent Vice President. She has questioned my experience, when she has less experience governing, and key figures from her husband's Administration who were with her at the time have that that experience did not occur. We know the other charges that have been leveled.

Now, when Mrs. Clinton is having questions raised about herself, serious questions about her own fitness for governance, about her own "experience", about her own--let's say politely veracity, in statements that she has made and is making, now--she would like to change the discussion. Now--she would like to focus on the "serious issues".

Well, I have to wonder. I know...I know...this is just her newest change, the newest hoodwink...but, still, I just have to wonder. Where was she when we were focusing on the serious issues? Where was she focusing he concerns when Congress took the vote on Iraq? Where has she been when we have been focusing week after week on the serious issues of resolving the war in Iraq, on providing security for our nation?

Just what will her next change be, next week? Do we want a President who does not know what she will say from week to week? Who does not know who she will be at 3 a.m."

And so on.

Instead of letting her simply make the turn, and playing catch-up, let her make her turn--and then box her within it, by tying it to and framing it within the context of her previous changes and actions.

Cite:
Head of State
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/03/making-turn.html

[trevor01]

What nonsense. You're attacking Hillary for offering voters a detailed plain for Iraq? As for her vote, most sane people have changed their minds (based on the facts) several times since that vote was taken. I admire her courage and her integrity and I'm confident, if anyone can see our way out of this mess it is Hillary. As for Fallon - not sure I'd want a loose cannon as my VP but that supreme judge of character, Barack Obama, will know better,

[youngbodhisattva]

Hillary still hedges on her initial Iraq vote. Edwards and others have since come out admitting it was a mistake to vote for the use of force authorization against Iraq, but Hillary also dusts off the lame "based on the intelligence we had at the time..." line. She has even said previously she would make the vote again and essentially did so by voting for the Kyl Amendment which classifies the Iranian military as a terrorist organization. She's a hawk and a saber rattler just like McCain... perhaps this is why she's betraying the Democratic party and telling voters he should be their second choice and is more qualified than Obama.

[PauCK]

Why are we wasting all these words over a commercial ?

[maggieb]

Because as usual the Obama ites love changing the subject, when they are feeling the heat. Either that or this writer just crawled out from under a rock and dont know that the latest "hot topic" is Rev Jeremiah Wright" ha ha!

[Syco]

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't everything he said protected by the 1st amendment? I may not agree with what he say but I will defend his right to say it. Actually i do agree.