Obama: "I’ll never see the threat of terrorism as a way to scare up votes"

[sabra]

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/02/hillary-barack.html

<snip>

The Obama campaign just sent around its candidate's prepared remarks at a VFW Hall in Houston, Texas, which includesthe following:

"I just want to take a moment to respond to an ad that Senator Clinton is apparently running today that asks, 'Who do you want answering the phone in the White House when it’s 3am and something has happened in the world?'

"We’ve seen these ads before. They’re the kind that play on peoples’ fears to scare up votes.

"Well it won’t work this time. Because the question is not about picking up the phone. The question is – what kind of judgment will you make when you answer? We’ve had a red phone moment. It was the decision to invade Iraq. And Senator Clinton gave the wrong answer. George Bush gave the wrong answer. John McCain gave the wrong answer.

"But I stood up and said that a war in Iraq would cost us thousands of lives and billions of dollars. I said that it would distract us from the real threat we face – and that we should take the fight to al Qaeda in Afghanistan. That’s the judgment I made on the most important foreign policy decision of our generation, and that’s the kind of judgment I’ll show when I answer that phone in the White House as President of the United States – the judgment to keep us safe, to go after our real enemies, and to provide the men and women who wear the uniform of the United States with the equipment they need when we do send them into battle, and the respect and care they have earned when they come home. And I’ll never see the threat of terrorism as a way to scare up votes, because it’s a threat that should rally this country around our common enemies. That’s the judgment we need at 3am. And that’s the judgment that I am running for President to provide."

[bigtree]

1. hasn't he mentioned the threat of terrorism in his speeches and statements??

:shrug:

[sabra]

2. I don't recall Obama using the fear mongering approach?

[bigtree]

10. that's your characterization. To me, Clinton is stressing the importance of experience.

That's not an irrelevant consideration. Hasn't Obama stressed his own ability to respond to these 'threats' in his speeches, statements, comments?

[jenmito]

19. And HE'S expressing that experience doesn't matter if your judgement is off, like hers is.

Obama has never used fear like the Repubs. He has only said he will NOT use fear to get votes.

[bigtree]

30. If the raising of the 'threat' in an ad is fearmongering, then it's the same on the campaign trail

. . . when Obama raises the issue and implies that there's something flawed with Clinton's judgment which would prevent her from protecting our national security.

[jenmito]

36. He's responding to Hillary's latest fear-card ad. He is right to rebut anything she tries to say.

Why should he let her get away with scaring people into voting for her?

[bigtree]

38. He's certainly spoken about the 'threat of terrorism' in speeches and other statements

. . . throughout this campaign. Why is that not viewed as 'scaring people into voting for him'?

[jenmito]

42. When you tell me what he said, I'll answer you.

[bigtree]

47. I don't need to. It's evident he's discussed his ability to respond to potential threats

. . . in this campaign. That's all the commercial does.

[jenmito]

49. HAHAHAHA! I figured you wouldn't/couldn't.

Hillary's commercial is fearmongering.

[bigtree]

64. then, so is Obama's every reference to the issue of a terrorist threat

. . . in this campaign.

[jenmito]

86. QUOTE me one of his "scare tactic" lines. TIA.

[bigtree]

89. Your characterization of the commercial is wrong. It is not a 'scare tactic'

That seems to be the extent of your argument, so . . .

[jenmito]

94. WATCH the ad and say that again...

You can't with a straight face: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/02/29/715557.aspx

[krkaufman]

108. The scare tactic is the message that children will die.

Boo!

Pretty obvious, really.

[NeedleCast]

31. You can piss on my leg and tell me it's raining too.

I'm not very likely to believe it.

[bigtree]

37. how disgustingly ignorant

[RaleighNCDUer]

58. The difference is

Obama is saying "I can handle it"

Clinton is saying "The other guy can't handle it"

See the difference?

ON EDIT: And the reply to her ad is saying "Oh yes, I can. You can't."

[bigtree]

75. the campaign's response disagrees with your characterization.

It's clearly trying to denigrate Clinton's judgment. Portraying her as approving of the preemptive invasion. This is politics.

[RaleighNCDUer]

85. Of COURSE he is denigrating her judgement.

She voted for the fucking war. Everything that he spoke of his his denunciation of the IWR vote has proved correct.

THAT was her "red phone" moment, and she blew it.

[bigtree]

87. she did not 'vote for the war'.

. . . that won't change, no matter how aggressively you say it.

[RaleighNCDUer]

91. And no matter how you defend it, it was KNOWN to plenty of

people that * would use that authority to go to war. No matter what signing statements were added to it, a 'yes' vote on IWR was a vote for war.

If it wasn't, why did it take 3 years for her to object to * overstepping his authority? Because the war was 'popular'. As soon as the majority of the public turned against it, she suddenly saw the error of her ways - sort of. She never did apologise for giving him that authority, as Edwards and Kerry did. Much sooner.

She was stampeded into supporting the war. I don't want a president who can be stampeded.

[bigtree]

93. The 'authority' used to deploy troops isn't inherent in that resolution, it's in the War Powers Act

And, Congress' approval or disapproval of the deployment under the WPA is to be registered by their advancement or denial of funds, as the resolution stated that none of the provisions of the bill should preclude the provisions of the War Powers Act. The resolution was not the trigger for Bush's forcing out of UN inspectors and invading, nor was the 'authority' he used inherent or original to that document.

[krkaufman]

109. No...! The difference is...

... Hillary's ad is conveying the message that children are going to die if the wrong person picks up the phone at 3am.

It's a formalization of a frickin' Cheney scare tactic.

[krkaufman]

107. No, she's saying our children are going to die if the wrong person picks up the phone at 3am.

If she wanted to tout her experience, then that is what she should have said in the ad, rather than following in the growing tradition of fear-mongerers...

The Daisy Ad - Johnson-Humphrey '64

The Bear - Reagan-Bush '84

Wolves - Bush-Cheney '04

Your Children May Die - Hillary '08 *

* One more thing that is especially sad about Hillary's fear-mongering... All the other examples above were run during the general election, against opponents from the other party -- but Hillary is running hers against someone from her own party.


edit: p.s. Most of the above links were collected from another's post at http://www.dipdive.biz/?p=4#comments

[maximusveritas]

6. Of course he's mentioned it, but he's never used it to scare up votes

That's the difference between him and Hillary. It was also the difference between Kerry and Bush in 2004. Kerry talked about terrorism, but only Bush made the argument that we couldn't trust the Presidency to Kerry or we might get hit again.

[bigtree]

12. He's running a campaign. What do you think he's doing when he gives a speech?

[Forkboy]

18. Talking about the real threat as an issue and not as a manipulative ploy?

[bigtree]

27. I don't see the distinction between raising the issue in an ad, and raising it on the campaign trail

Same emotional appeal, same goal of portraying the other as inadequate, and, the same pursuit of votes in that appeal.

[TwilightGardener]

35. Terrorism is a real issue--he discusses it as a real issue. I have yet

to see him attach an "emotional" appeal to it, just says what he's going to do about it.

[bigtree]

39. It shouldn't have an 'emotional appeal' to it? I thought his whole thing was emotion . . .

. . . the vibe

[TwilightGardener]

48. Perhaps you read him wrong. He's very analytical. That was the big rap

against him last summer and fall, that he was too cool, thoughtful and analytical, talking policy over people's heads at town hall meetings and not making his move against Hillary. Now the rap is that he's all emotion, no substance. You're a very suggestible person. I'll bet you buy a lot of TV infomercial products.

[bigtree]

68. I watch these folks as close as anyone can.

and, I think you know that.

[krkaufman]

110. Is "your children are going to die!" just an emotional appeal?

Do you really view that as the equivalent of Obama's campaign critique of Hillary's failure of judgment in voting for the Iraq resolution?

(Note: The above is a rhetorical question, at least from the standpoint that I won't be checking back for a response.)

[RaleighNCDUer]

61. The point is, he has NOT been saying that she was inadequate.

He has been talking himself up, not her down. Then she comes out with the "scare them away from him" ad, and he calls her on it.

It's the difference between positive and negative campaigning.

[bigtree]

77. He's said all along that her judgment is flawed, as if she's some warmonger

I understand the myopia, but . . .

[Forkboy]

70. Then we agree both are wrong?

[bigtree]

73. there are going to be questions about both's ability to perform

Some may not place a great emphasis on their ability to manage military affairs, but I don't see how they can avoid some kind of appeal in this campaign (or in the general) which stresses their apparent capabilities.

[Forkboy]

102. I think the question is how that experience is portrayed and played.

I don't see how either has military experience (though Hillary should have more Foreign Policy experience than Obama), and I also think that no candidate can really talk about much of anything without being an appeal to emotion, like you said above. I agree with that, but what emotion they appeal to says a lot, and the image painted by Hillary is meant to inspire fear just as much as highlight whatever experience she has. We've been seeing that from the Right for decades now (well, I have, I don't want to make you sound old if you're not :) ), so we should recognize it for what it is even when it's coming from our side. That "3 AM call" stuff is meant to scare, and if you don't believe me wait and watch the Right use the very same card all summer long no matter who our nominee is. :shrug:

[bigtree]

103. Obama means to portray Clinton as reckless and bent on war

That's just as much of a distortion and appealing to the same base level of fear.

[Forkboy]

105. I agree.

Which is why I never use warmonger to describe her (I use both of their names and nothing else). I think your point is spot on. He's wrong to do that.

Is this two agreements in one day for us? Who says there's no hope for GD-P? :)

[bigtree]

106. I'll take it.

:beer:

[jenmito]

7. He was responding to Hillary's new ad asking who you want picking up the phone in the WH at 3 in the

morning. He answered brilliantly. She's trying to play the fear card and he responded saying you'd want someone with good judgement picking up the phone, that Hillary HAD her "red phone moment," and gave the wrong answer-she voted for the IWR.

[bigtree]

23. Is Obama 'playing to the fear card' when he brings up the 'threat of terrorism'?

If he says these things on the campaign trail, he's raising them to contrast his ability with that of his opponent, in his pursuit of votes.

And, I think the comparison is opportunistic and off-point. Bush pushed past Congress, withdrew the inspectors enabled back into Iraq by the force implied in the resolution, and, preemptively invaded. That vote she made is not the same scenario as the crisis the ad implies a president might face and the experience which will be critical to the reaction such a crisis..

[jenmito]

33. NO. He's responding to those who DO play the fear card, including Hillary.

Yes, her vote WAS the same scenario. It's about JUDGEMENT, whether it's 3 in the morning or 5pm. HER experience would have her answering the call with the wrong response.

[bigtree]

45. that's pretty one-sided. Should we 'scare' up his statements?

I really don't need them. I know there's no difference between campaigning using the issue and in making an ad.

[jenmito]

52. I'm still waiting for you to SHOW me his "scare tactic" ads/statements.

Keep justifying your candidate's scare tactics.

[bigtree]

69. YOU call them 'scare tactics'. I don't agree that the commercial was a 'scare tactic'

[jenmito]

82. Of COURSE you don't think it's a scare tactic. I bet you also didn't think her "xerox" comment was

a clunker.

[bigtree]

90. You're just abusive.

I'm done with you.

[jenmito]

92. If being persistent=being abusive, you're right.

:hi:

[jenmito]

84. Her ad is DEFINITELY a scare-tactic ad. The phone is ringing, with ominous music while it shows

little children sleeping, with words, "In this dangerous world..." PLEASE! Hillary=Bush.

[SIMPLYB1980]

15. Many times.

[jenmito]

20. What did he say?

[SIMPLYB1980]

21. We should bomb pakistan for one.

[jenmito]

26. Why don't you quit repeating lies? He said he would strike al Qaeda targets in Pakistan if Pakistan

wouldn't cooperate. It was in response to a question that it first came up and he was called "naive." Yet guess what they just DID a couple weeks ago! They made a strike within Pakistan and killed the 3rd al Qaeda guy in charge.

[TwilightGardener]

32. Yeah, he's just going to cluster-bomb Pakistan, take out Islamabad

and force a regime change. He's a secret neocon. Please. His policy is to strike AQ targets ONLY if we know where they are, and the Pakistani government can't or refuses to act. That's our policy now, and it would be the same under Hillary, whether she has the balls to admit it or not.

[democrattotheend]

3. You tell him!

Regardless of which candidate you support, isn't it great that we have a candidate who is finally standing up to the fear-mongering that the Republicans have successfully used for the last 6 years? Between this and the patriotism thing...Obama has shown that he is not afraid to stand up to fear-mongering and won't be held hostage by Republican demands for false displays of patriotism.

[NightWatcher]

8. and he'll shoot down the other rw garbage and McCain attacks with as much speed and vigor

[TwilightGardener]

4. Good answer. He is on his game.

[peoli]

5. I love you Barack Obama!

[Araxen]

9. I can't wait to see the commercial they come out with

I'm sure one will be coming today. They are usually quick about these things.

[rateyes]

11. That ad won't be running much longer. nt

[babylonsister]

40. I think you're right there. She'll have to yank it now if she has any

political chops. That's also questionable.

[Orsino]

60. I do think that "the grown-ups are in charge" is a failed meme...

...worn out by years of */Cheney abuses. America is in a mood to trust a younger candidate, I think.

But anyone who will answer the red phone with something other than bombing is welcome to the job.

[jackstraw45]

13. Clinton uses same tactics as Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rice....

Enough said. It's time for a REAL CHANGE.

[polichick]

51. Yep - AND Rove!

[jenmito]

14. I saw him say it just minutes ago. He is GOOD! n/t

[Adelante]

16. October 11, 2002

Hillary's "red phone moment."

[oasis]

17. Because Obama doesn't know goat shit from grape jelly when it comes to defending America,

he's blaming Hillary for blueprinting the invasion of Iraq.:eyes:

[jenmito]

22. Really? He publicly and correctly predicted exactly what would happen if we took our eye off the

ball in Afghanistan to invade Iraq. Hillary's they one who doesn't know how to defend America, since she believed invading Iraq WAS defending America. :eyes:

[oasis]

57. "..support for this resolution makes its success in the Untied Nations more likely,

and therefore, war, less likely." HRC.

How does your assertion square up with Hillary's IWR address?

[RaleighNCDUer]

66. How does Hillary's IWR address square up with

NOT objecting to shock & awe, not opposing the war until she's ready to start running for president?

If she was fooled by Bushco, if Bushco overstepped their authority

WHY DID SHE SAY NOTHING?

[oasis]

76. When the shooting starts, most Americans back our guys. Hillary's no different. Point is,

Hillary attempted to avoid the war in the first place.

[RaleighNCDUer]

83. By giving him authority to go to war.

Have your cake and eat it, too.

[oasis]

88. You and Obama can keep beating that dead horse all you like.

Before the clock runs out,Barack will have to come up with a proposal or two on how to get America back on its feet.

[jenmito]

97. It's not a dead horse. And she also said al Qaeda and WMD were in Iraq...

And just a couple days ago her husband conflated the Iraq war with 9/11 to justify her vote.

[krkaufman]

112. By voting to authorize the use of force?

I think she may have applied the ol' parenting reverse psychology ploy one too many times, then.

[jenmito]

95. She's naive by thinking Bush wouldn't use that resolution to invade Iraq.

[oasis]

98. Naive? What did she have to go on?

[jenmito]

99. How 'bout the fact that Bush had been giving several "scare speeches" about Saddam,

or that Bush's FATHER didn't get Saddam and ever since the PNAC has been trying to get presidents to invade Iraq (and Cheney's a member of the PNAC), or that Levin and Reid put up another resolution to try to slow the invasion down (which she voted against), or that she SAID she consulted with her husband...

[9119495]

24. you're a liar, liar.

see, anyone can say stupid things on DU.

[burythehatchet]

25. Please use "Homeland" instead of America. Thank you n/t

[Schema Thing]

29. Obviously he is both smarter and more responsible in judgement than Hillary.

He's proved it.

She's proved at best to be a finger-to-the-wind in times of crisis politician.

[oasis]

54. Obama has the good judgement to adopt every proposal that Hillary has put forward.

That's about it.

[krkaufman]

111. Please do inform the readers as to anywhere that Obama has said Hillary "blueprinted" the invasion.

It's definitely fair to say that she green-lighted the invasion, if we're looking for an equally catchy term, and one for which you could at least find analogies for in Obama's speeches.

[indimuse]

28. Obama needs to quit lying about Iraq!!

what a wimp...Iraq!!Iraq!!Iraq!!Iraq!!Iraq!!Iraq!! sound familiar? 911 911 911..?

When had had an "Opportunity" to make Change in Iraq...where was he? HE VOTED YES TO FUND IRAQ WAR!! Many times! He DID NOT VOTE NO!!! HE perpetuated this war!! He is a blatant opportunist LIAR!!
How can he stand up there with a straight face and say this shit?
AAAAANNNNDDDD....Afghanistan...Afghanistan...? Why didn't he hold ANY...ONE...meeting on Afghanistan...it is his DUTY....JOB!!! He is more concerned about his campaign than what he was elected to do. Afghanistan and it's people are suffering more today than a year and a half ago...Good Job Obama!

[jenmito]

41. Wow! You need to quit lying and repeating Hillary's talking points!

Relax. You'll be in good hands with President Obama. :hi:

[TwilightGardener]

43. That's quite an unhinged rant there. Makes it hard to wade through, in search of

your meritless and ridiculous points, but here goes: Obama doesn't chair the subcommittee that's responsible for hearings on Afghanistan. Hillary, and many other anti-war Senators, also vote to fund the war because defunding is considered an extreme, risky, and undesirable way to end a war. It's a last resort, and something that might be done after most troops are out of harm's way, but NOT during the height of a conflict when we have 100,000+ troops there.

[scheming daemons]

46. Becoming unhinged.... just like your candidate........

....

[cali]

50. Obama has voted like Pat Leahy and Teddy Kennedy

he has voted to fund Iraq and voted for almost every piece of legislation mandating we get out of Iraq. By your lame "logic" Leahy and Kennedy weren't really against the war. We know, of course, that that's a stinking pile.

You've lost it, along with your gal, who's now sounding like a joke.

[indimuse]

56. you miss the point (again) completely!

He had an opportunity to WALK the WALK!!! Kucinich style...Independently... You know...He said in a speech before elected...He would NOT fund this war!lIAR! Who gives ahoot what Kennedy and Leahy did...IT IS OBAMA and his FORK TOUNGUE!!! I am talking about!

[cali]

59. No. You don't get it.

anyway, who cares what you all say? It's over. Get used to it. Senator Clinton is about to become irrelevant as far as the Presidential race goes.

[indimuse]

62. neva gonna happen..

no matter how many lies he tells...YOU get used to it!

[cali]

79. it's already happened.

only Hilly Heathers don't know it. He's going to finish her off, dearie. And if she stays in she'll be nothing but a national late night talk show punchline.

[indimuse]

80. oh..but...march 3 should be an

interesting news day...wonder why they moved the original date...uh..could it be not enough time to stick? You know what I'm talking bout!

[cali]

101. Delightfully,

you're in for a crushing disappointment. And are you actually suggesting that the judge and Fitz colluded with Obama to move the trial. Adjust your charming tin foil head wear.

[RaleighNCDUer]

71. What is a "fork tongue"? nt

[indimuse]

78. a liar!

American Indian ...

[RaleighNCDUer]

81. No, that is a "forked tongue", such as a snake has.

Please respect our native language enough to use it correctely.

[Kukesa]

96. Worse yet ; look at the post -- what's a FORK TOUNGUE? n/t

[Scurrilous]

34. Excellent!

:thumbsup:

[MBS]

44. GOOD FOR OBAMA!!!

Bravo.

[PurityOfEssence]

53. Just you wait, Henry Higgins, just you wait...

Every cycle, there's a glorious fresh face, flush with the politics of the new, and it often ends the same: "things are different now", "the old models don't work", "reality's for pessimists" echo across the heartland, and things stay the same. Their opponents rely on tested methods of vote-getting, and so do they.

The faith-based campaign strikes again.

Rah.

[jmg257]

55. WOW "The question is – what kind of judgment will you make when you answer? "

MAJOR LEAGUE SLAP DOWN!

Sweet! GObama!

[Coexist]

63. he is so fast and so effective in his responses

wow.

[Radical Activist]

65. This is exactly why Obama is the best nominee would can choose.

Hillary and Edwards could never have delivered a line like that because they voted for the war.

[Franks Wild Years]

67. Imagine her answering the phone at 3am...

.."BOMB...BOMB...BOMB! WHO DARES WAKE PRINCESS HILLARY! BOMB! BOMB!"

Fucking hell, if the apparent mental instability she's displayed of late is anything to go by, President Hillary would likely bring about the end of the world!

I cannot believe that this is the same person I respected greatly a few years ago. I truly hope that she finds a way to redeem herself politically.

[elixir]

72. HRC gave authority to *. By the way, Obama would have bombed Afganistan

(w/ our w/out authorization). There are many world crises that are not terrorist attacks i.e. natural disasters, accidents, etc. HRC is not playing the terrorist card, she's asking who is more able to handle a crisis - I think it's Hillary.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

74. er - the terrorists were in Afghanistan not Iraq remember

remember Osama Bin Laden?

[krkaufman]

113. The message of her ad is "your children may die if the wrong person picks up the phone at 3am."

Yes, she *is* playing the terrorist/fear card. And rather blatantly, at that. (Rivaled only be a few other ads in our history, where the others, it should be noted, were at least run in the general election against opponents from the other party.)

[FrenchieCat]

100. The Hillary ad is reminiscent of the daisy commercial of the 60s.

It is despicable....and very GOP like!

Good for Obama in reference to responding.

Another issue that will backfire for Hillary. Add that to the now long list!

[krkaufman]

114. Then you might "enjoy" this Hall of Fame collection ...

... to which Hillary's contribution can now be added:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4819709&mesg_id=4829798

[Robert Oak]

104. Obama scares me

and it has nothing to do with the new Clinton ad.

I've thought this for a very long time, terrorism is real, national security is real and the Clintons, esp. if they bring in Richard Clarke, have a long history down this road already.

I've always thought Hillary would be much stronger on dealing with what needs to be done on international terrorism and national security.

She put out an ad, amplifying it, well, good for her is all I can say because I've been thinking it for along time,
esp. in the debates where Obama just says "me too" after Hillary answers in detail the questions on international relations and national security. There are multiple examples of that, last debate the Russian Putin replacement, it was clear Obama had no clue
and I wish these people would ask Obama these questions first so it became more obvious he doesn't know the answer.

[CyberPieHole]

115. No. Obama plays the "race card" for votes. And does it quite well. n/t

[flordehinojos]

116. however, on the MSNBC debated he defended his position on international politics or readiness to be

commander in chief stating that he would be ready to "DEFEND THE HOMELAND" ... NOW ... the word HOMELAND DOES TERROR AND INTIMIDATION IMPLY, I DON'T KNOW WHAT DOES. BO does lie one more time.