It's Who is Dialing the 3am Call that Really Matters

Posted March 7, 2008 | 07:16 PM (EST)



stumble digg reddit del.ico.us news trust

Much discussion has been devoted to the Clinton campaign television ad that asks "who do you want answering the phone" when a global crisis strikes. It's a critically important question -- and a smart campaign tactic.

But too few people have focused on what may be a more important question; who would be the advisors who are calling the President?

In every White House senior staff are almost always aware of a problem and begin to recommend a response prior to the president being informed. The senior staff and cabinet have a responsibility to simultaneously update the president on a situation and also answer the first question the president will ask; "what are our options?"

A president's advisors hold enormous power, and while Hillary Clinton's advisors have long and distinguished track records of success, Senator Obama's team is largely untested and clumsy -- a fact that is revealing itself as the campaign goes on.

Let's look at just two sets of advisors -- economic and foreign policy;

Gene Sperling is Senator Clinton's top economic advisor. He served in the Clinton administration as the president's National Economic Adviser and Director of the National Economic Council. President Clinton has called Sperling "the MVP" of the economic team which created record-high surpluses, record-low poverty rates, the longest economic expansion in history, the lowest unemployment since the early 1970s, and the lowest poverty rates for single mothers, black Americans, and the elderly.

Austan Goolsbee is Senator Obama's top economic advisor. He's a 38 year old University of Chicago professor. Goolsbee also served as a consultant to the Justice Department on internet policy. He is most famous for having told the consul general for the Canadian government that Obama didn't really believe what he saying about NAFTA and that his remarks "should be viewed as more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans."

Now let's look at two key advisors on foreign policy;

Ambassador Richard Holbrooke is often described as Senator Clinton's top foreign policy advisor. Holbrooke has a long and distinguished diplomatic career which began with his service in Vietnam. He served as US Ambassador to the United Nations, US Ambassador to Germany, and ended the war in Bosnia by brokering the Dayton Peace Accords.

Until today, Samantha Power was often described as Obama's most influential foreign policy advisor. Power is a Harvard professor who wrote a truly wonderful and Pulitzer-prize winning book about genocide. Despite being a gifted writer, Power had no government experience except for two years working with Senator Obama. She resigned from the campaign today after calling Senator Clinton a "monster" to a Scottish newspaper. Not exactly artful diplomacy.

With a recession looming, a war in Iraq, a war in Afghanistan and the threat of terrorist attacks... who do you want making the phone call to the President at 3 am?


 
 

Comments
88
Pending Comments
0

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

View Comments:
Page: 1 2 Next › Last » (2 pages total)

Yes, the Clinton team has run a magnificent, successful campaign. The last two weeks have that campaign's slash and burn strategy in play. The Canadian government can't get their story straight
on who said what, The Obama camp or the Clinton camp. We may never know, but it did work in Ohio and Texas.

What I can't understand is what in the world are the voters in Ohio thinking. Clinton legislation in the nineties screwed Ohioans and they're willing to go with the Clintons again?? Proves that people will consistently vote against their own self-interest.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:51 PM on 03/09/2008

What some people want is drama. If Obama joined Clinton in a dirty game of mud slinging, we could have that. Buty that is not going to solve problems.
Obama's campaignn has so far illustrated the way he woulod approach problems in other areas. Her has been resperctful, focussed on the things we need to do.

In that regard his call for openness in government is major. By putting the developoment of programs like health care berfore ther peopole so we canb see who is serving what interestsa, we can hold our representatives accountable. We cannot do that when things are done in backroom dealing and even the participants' identities are hidden from us. (Recall anything like that?)

And his call for diplomacy is big too. Our interrnational problems will not be solved by us simply demanding our way like spoiled children. But if we meet respectfully with some olf that other 95.4% of humanity and seek solutions of our mutual problems of living on this one little planet, we have a chance. We are all similar beings with similar needs and desires, and cooperation is more likely to have good resuilts than conflict. Ours is a large nation, but still we are only 4.6% of the whole of mankind. If we are ever to build the vfoundation for a more peaceful world it must begin as Obama has indicated, not with more "my way or the highway" bullying. Are we going to listen to those wishing for more drama, more conflict, more of the samer old stuff, or aree we to follow the quieter wisdom being displayed by only one of our current Democratic candidates?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:57 PM on 03/09/2008

Samantha Powers made that comment "off the record" yet somehow became printed. I am sure that you will not fall short of numerous people that have called Hillary worst things and "monster" would be putting it mildly, fortunately for them it was kept "off the record."


If you really want to know who is qualified to answer the "red" phone, without a doubt, it would be McCain - I dare she bring up the question if she is the nominee. In her own words McCain has the experience - oops!!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:19 AM on 03/09/2008

Little George has some smart advisors - it hasn't helped.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:22 PM on 03/08/2008

Can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:01 PM on 03/09/2008

Thanks Trevor, bullseye!

Obama makes statements about NAFTA and his advisor tells Canada that this was "just words".

Obama promises to remove the troops in 2009, if elected, his advisor says that this is a "best case scenario" and that you can not make any promises about Iraq, because you can not predict how the situation might develop. Or "just words"...

Obama argues that he is prepared to take that 3 a.m. phone call and that judgment is the only thing needed, while his advisor claims that neither Hillary, nor Obama are ready to take that call.

A charismatic quarterback is useless, if his team always drops the ball. If these guys and gals are the best he could find, then his first cabinet will be a catastrophy...

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:01 PM on 03/08/2008

I agree that advisors are critical.

But Clinton's advisors overwhelmingly backed the war on Iraq. Obama's overwhelmingly opposed it. That's the single key decision, and they got it wrong--that alone should make us choose Obama. Clinton's have also been far more supportive of Bush's "surge" and far more belligerant toward Iran.

See my piece with Stephen Zunes "Hillary Heeds Hawks."
www.huffingtonpost.com/_85853.html




    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:59 PM on 03/08/2008

Mr. Neilson's Rating of the Democratic candidates, like the TV version, comes with a margin of error. Per his bio, a "Visiting Practitioner at the Georgetown University Center for Public and Nonprofit Leadership," Neilson's expertise in leadership seems thin on detail when he enters the realm of foreign policy and the relevancy of 3am calls to the White House.

How telling that Neilson states definitively who each campaign's economic advisors are, yet when commenting on foreign policy advisors his language slips from "is" to "often described as," betraying a lack of acknowledgement of the depth of Obama's foreign policy TEAM, Samantha Powers included.

Ms. Power is far more savvy and world-renowned in matters foreign policy than Neilson lets on: "From 1993 to 1996, she worked as a journalist, covering the Yugoslav wars for U.S. News & World Report, The Boston Globe, The Economist, and The New Republic. A scholar of foreign policy especially as it relates to human rights, genocide, and AIDS, she is currently the Anna Lindh Professor of Practice of Global Leadership and Public Policy at Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government."

The more one considers the whole picture and includes all the facts, in a way Neilson did not, Obama, not Hillary, again, has shown excellent judgment in choosing his advisors who will ready him for those "3am" calls.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:55 PM on 03/08/2008

If the red phone rang at 3 a.m., I would want a person with leadership abilities and good judgment to answer, something Hillary Clinton has demonstrated she does not have. Clinton is a follower, not a leader, always waiting to see which way the political wind is blowing before making a decision.

She voted to pre-emptively invade a sovereign country, to wage an unnecessary war against a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 - at a cost of thousands of lives and trillions of dollars. The war is bankrupting this country both financially and morally.

And more recently, she voted for a bill to bomb Iran, which would be insane.

And on important issues such as FISA, she didn't even bother to show up to vote against retroactive immunity for the telecoms. Obama did.

Hillary is not a leader but a panderer to the polls. If she answered the phone at 3 a.m., she'd wait until a poll was taken before reaching a decision.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:16 PM on 03/08/2008

Is it possible that the person on the other end of the phone line at 3:00 AM is one of Bill's girl friends?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:49 PM on 03/08/2008

To get where we are today in foreign policy, health care, immigration, education and the economy, we went through the Clinton Administration. In some respects we are reaping what was sown in the Clinton Administration. Just because they were at the helm of their respective specialties in the past does not mean they are prepared to keep us off the rocks today. In some cases they are the reason we are one the rocks today.

Bringing up NAFTA which we know was misreported, and calling Obamas team clumsy is very misleading. And a Foreign policy advisor and a diplomat are two very diffrent things so don't try to sell me that lie either. And refering to problems within the campaign do you really want to go there? The Clinton campaign didn't even know the rules in Texas and had no plan past the start of February, the Clinton campaign is in armed camps blaming failures on each other, in the meantime Clinton had to lend her own campaign money, McCain's campaign also had numerous problems. And those are the people with the "experience" to know better? That dog don't hunt.

Back to the drawing board Clintpublican, not fooled this time.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:59 PM on 03/08/2008

Posting a resume for Hillary won't work. Any resume about Hillary contains half truths and outright lies. As an example, her "trip" to Bosnia: She claimed it was dangerous trip, I didn't hear Sinbad or Ms Crow agree with Hillary since they went on trip with her. So your name dropping resume for Hillary is getting tiresome.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:37 PM on 03/08/2008


Out of curiousity, what was Mr. Obama doing when Hillary was taking her not very dangerous trip to Bosnia?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:04 PM on 03/09/2008

You know, it is her track record and that of her adviors that actually are the main reason I didn't support her candidacy to begin with. Not the one you've spun here today but the actual track record.

Her experience is light - having tea with the wives of world leaders is not experience necessary to be the president. The Chicago Tribune has debunked her foreign policy achievement claims from that time.

http://weblogs.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/blog/2008/03/clintons_experience_on_world_s.html

Her advisors are old hold-overs from Clinton policy of the 90s that are responsible for the loss of manufacturing and the mortgage meltdown mess - NAFTA and the repeal of Glass Steagall.

I don't see Hillary as any more experienced than Obama at all. And her judgement with the way she's handled her campaign and her votes for Iraq and against banning cluster bombs make her qualifications to be Senator, let alone president, extremely questionable.

She's a paper tiger and I wouldn't want to see her advisors near the White House again. They've done enough damage. Save your Bogeyman scare tactics for those who still believe Sadaam Hussein had something to do with 9/11.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:49 AM on 03/08/2008

If Hillary loses, Trevor, you have a future with the Republican Party. This post is truly a masterpiece of selective and limited information. You take two Obama aids who have been in the news lately, one for a story that has been discredited, and one for an unfortunate incident that was quickly dealt with and ignoring all their other qualifications and all Obama's other advisors (the ones who worked for Bill Clinton, but chose this time to go with Obama even though he was clearly the underdog at the time) and think you have made some kind of point.

All of Hillary's foreign advisors couldn't help her to get it right on Iraq or Iran.

All of her financial advisors haven't prevented her from having to dip into her personal fortune in waging a losing Presidential campaign.

And all of her political advisors weren't able to stop her from endorsing the Republican candidate for President.

Hey, Trevor, how do you answer these questions from John McCain if your candidate makes it to the general election...

Hillary, you've just spent months telling voters that experience is the most important thing in a President. I am far more experienced than you are in every way that matters. So I guess you're backing me for President?

Hillary, you had wonderful things to say about Barack Obama when he was running for the nomination. But you also said that I was far more qualified. Doesn't that make me an outstanding candidate for President?

Hillary, you voted with me on authorizing troups to Iraq. And you agree that the troop surge, which I championed, is working. So shouldn't I be the guy making the decisions about winning this war?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:44 AM on 03/08/2008

Thank you for doing the hard work on this one seth blink. I was too tired. This Trevor Nielson guy needs to go back to propaganda school and learn how to be more subtle. You have to at least have a whiff of credibility with your audience in order to persuade them of anything. When will they learn.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:14 PM on 03/08/2008

" "who do you want answering the phone" when a global crisis strikes. It's a critically important question -- and a smart campaign tactic. "
1. NASA is getting all sorts of grief from the scientific community right now because they were asked to come up with a plan to protect the earth from meteors. They only bothered to simulate scenarios involving huge meteors (which astronomers can easily find and track, and are really, really rare), but not the smaller ones that could still do a lot of damage and are a lot more numerous. As in this situation, one needs to look at the bigger picture. The bigger picture is that the US faces all sorts of smaller issues everyday. Shouldn't we be more worried about finding a candidate who is capable of dealing with the things that are GOING to happen, not the things that COULD happen? No, who answers the ominous "3am phone call" is not a critically important question in this campaign.
2. Calling fear mongering a smart campaign tactic is correct, but that's not all it is. It is calling the American people stupid rather blatantly. It is playing the same game that Bush and his cronies have been playing for eight years. It is lowering the intelligence of the debate.
Thanks, Hill.
And thank you, Nielson, for bringing this rediculous discussion to HuffPo.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:06 AM on 03/08/2008

For all of you who think Obama doesn't harbor the ambition and triangulation of a typical politician click on the link below and read the article from a former Chicago reporter. He probably owes more favors to Emil Jones Jr for his rise to power than he does Tony Rezko. I would vote for the guy in November but I don't think he is the saint that his supporters make him about to be.

http://dallasobserver.com/2008-02-28/news/obama-and-me/print

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:37 AM on 03/08/2008

That was a very interesting article. It definitely provides a different take and perspective on Obama from part of his constituency.

That said, it is one guy's perception and a few politicians/ activists who had some good and some not so great things to say about their experiences with Obama. It differs in tone and some of the details from some of the pieces I have seen written in the big Chicago papers. But the fact is, he is a politician, and you can't be one unless you engage in politics. Go figure...

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:39 PM on 03/08/2008

Well if we're speaking about advisers, how about Mark Penn of the Clinton campaign? His zillion-dollar p.r. firm represents Blackwater. In fact, before the Blackwater chief exec appeared before Congress, he was coached by Mark Penn. I'm more concerned about someone who profits from death than from someone who uses the word "monster."

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:35 AM on 03/08/2008

Once again, the conventional wisdom is the longer a person has been in Washington, the more competent he is. Most people can look at the last 8 years and see that's not true - you couldn't assemble a more experienced team of advisors than Bush has. It's not Washington experience that counts, it's judgement. Like the judgement not to support the Iraq war, judgement not to make the same mistake in Iran, etc.

Like Kinky Friedman says, "Government is the only profession in which, the longer a person does it, the less competent he gets."

Go back and listen to some of Susan Rice's interviews and tell me Obama doesn't have some very sharp people working for him. Go back and revisit Samantha Powers' life and tell me that woman doesn't have 10 times the applicable experience that a bunch of Washington insiders like Clinton prefers.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:47 AM on 03/08/2008

Neither Rice or Power was savvy enough not to get tripped up by their own words.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:03 PM on 03/08/2008

That only means that they're not robots and aren't always "on message"; they're human. How refreshing.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:17 PM on 03/08/2008

News flash! Obama middle name Hussein just might be helpful for a President of the United States. After all do we not want peace around the world. Muslems fear the U.S. because they think were out to kill them, and that we hate them. What grounds would they any longer have in carrying on a hate campagne if the U.S. showed the whole world that RACE,RELIGEON AND GENDER doesn't matter------------THAT THE UNITED STATES THINKS EVERYONE MATTERS AND THAT EVERY ONE IS IMPORTANT AS WELL AS THEIR RELIGEON AS LONG AS THEY DON'T USE IT AS AN EXCUSE TO KILL PEOPLE! BRAVO OBAMA------------bring us peace not only in the U.S. but around the glode. THANK YOU!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:36 AM on 03/08/2008

WOW>..... please take a close look at the advisers surrounding Hillary Clinton. Look at the players from her husband's administration. The question that should be asked is... do we really want a fake democrat, with a team of lying war-mongering, labor destroying advisers to hold office? Forget the comparison for a second, and the answer is "NO". .
economic policy- deregulated financial mkts., corporate welfare, unfair tax policy, gutted social welfare programs, blind monetary policy, trade policy that continues to destroy domestic manufacturing, etc..
foreign policy- will not withdraw immediately, will continue using private mercenaries, fails to recognize the Constitution's role in declaring 'war'. Promised to use force in other areas without a declaration. Continue blind aid to saudi arabia, israel, etc, ignores sovereignty of nations, ignores Latin American policies, ignores depleted uranium issue, etc.
-----
and for the Obama supporters...... if you think he is going to be much different, I have one question for you..... what is going to "make him" different? Surely not "we the people".... most people don't even pay attention to these issues, and when they do, they only compare them to the rhetoric of the 'right wing". As long as we still do that, the lesser of two evil game, has only one direction..... more evil.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:23 AM on 03/08/2008

Hmmm........ Good Question. Who do I want making the call? Some DLC corporate crony who sold their soul decades ago or an untested newbie? HMMMMM. I'll go with the untested newbie. At least there is a chance he or she might get it right.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:02 AM on 03/08/2008

If the phone rings, and Hillary answers, I would bet it was George Bush on the line, asking Hillary if she would vote for another war of his. And........with all her experience to draw upon, I positive she would answer "YES"!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:58 AM on 03/08/2008

Since is seems that, using all sensible measures, the clumsy untested team is in the process of beating the team with all the experience and expertise, in spite of some rather dubious tactics they've been using, what does that say about the team with all that experience? I would argue that, given that Obama started the campaign with so many theoretical disadvantages, he's performed more brilliantly than anyone in many years, Clintons included.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:21 AM on 03/08/2008

Oh wow, a Hillary toady. Have you heard the delegate tally in Texas after all the dust has settled....Hillary 92...Obama 95. Uh, that's a 3 delegate win in Texas FOR Obama. She may have won the popular vote but in "what counts" Obama won the state.

Let's face it, this race is all but over and the only reason it is being prolonged for several more months is to keep Democrats at the top of the news and make their opponent John McWho.

Bravo Democrats!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:21 AM on 03/08/2008

Most of these posts describe a panic setting in with the Obamanistas. They now realize that their wonder boy is merely mortal and that you can't win the White House without some experience. Obama cannot win a national election and Hillary Clinton's recent victories tell the story. She has won all the major DEMOCRATIC states for a reason. She is competent. She was reelected to the Senate with a 69% approval rating. She has experience, real experience. It shows in hera advisors, who contrary to what these posters would have you believe, did VERY WELL during the Clinton administration. It as Bush who took us into Iraq, not President Clinton. Besides, now that Iraq is fading as an issue and the economy is tanking, people need real plans, real leadership and real solutions, not a lot of verbal fluff.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:07 AM on 03/08/2008

OK, polcomm, I was for Edwards and until recently, thought the choice between Barack and Hillary was six of one, half dozen of another. But I've changed my mind. And it's based on the skill and integrity with which the two have run their respective campaigns.

On the one hand we've got Obama -- using 21st century tactics to raise record breaking sums of money from the people not corporations; staying positive; winning states (including Texas, Einstein), bringing people together, developing detailed policies (Barack beat Hillary with both an energy plan and a helath care plan) etc. etc. etc.

On the other, we've got Hillary. Starting with a huge lead and squandering it; rainsing money the old fashioned way, by selling her soul to corporate interests, running a fractious, divisive and shifting campaign, while within her camp there is fighting, backstabbing and blame.

Running a campaign is a major endeavor -- it is indicative of leadership and management ability. Based on the above record, what exactly has Hillary's vaunted experience done for her? What can it do for us?

Experience is useful, only if one learns from it. Hillary voted for Bush's Iran bill -- the same kind of thing that justified his tragic and foolhardy invasion in Iraq.

Sorry, but that's idiotic. And her team is running like a model A ford -- with parts falling off as she lurches along -- herky-jerkey towards the only destination that means anything to her -- herself in the white house. Damn the Party, damn the country, damn the people - nothing else matters to her.

I'll take verbal fluff and a well oild machine over that any day --

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:26 AM on 03/08/2008

You are insane - do you think the democratic states are going to turn red in November if Obama is the nominee? If anything the fact that he won the other states is more in his favor, since the last 8 years has proved winning only blue states doesn't win a Presidency ? How is she competent ? What is her real experience ? And please explain how dragging the country through the Clinton dirt in November which is what the Republicans will do will result in a win for her ?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:41 AM on 03/08/2008

For the love of God and all that is holy, can someone please tell me WHAT EXPERIENCE? Granted, she has been in the Senate longer than Obama, but not much. Her years in the White House? THEY DON'T COUNT!

So let me see if I understand this. By the Clinton campaign's logic, if I'm married to a doctor, and I tag along to all of the doctor parties and conventions, that makes me an "experienced surgeon", right? That RULES!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:15 AM on 03/08/2008

This post comes across like a bad, inaccurate campaign ad. Why subject yourself to a lot of Obama supporters who are paying attention? You're as strong as your weakest link, and there are a few.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:19 AM on 03/08/2008

"He is most famous for having told the consul general for the Canadian government that Obama didn't really believe what he saying about NAFTA and that his remarks "should be viewed as more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans."

This has already been debunked and it was actually reported that it was Clinton's team that told the Canadians not to worry so why is the author running on that lie?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:57 AM on 03/08/2008

"it was actually reported that it was Clinton's team that told the Canadians not to worry so why is the author running on that lie?"

The lie is that it was debunked. The Canadian government confirmed that Clinton's camp didn't contact them. And they confirmed that Obama's did.

You may post your apology now.